Why Bernie Sanders Might Fare Better than Hillary Clinton in a Donald Trump Showdown
It looks as though Mr. Trump may continue to bleach his hair in the Sun all the way to November, and what we have learned from him is that he is deaf to any holds being barred. If Hillary Clinton is his opponent, we can fully expect that Mr. Trump will bring out every negativity, real or imagined, against Madame Secretary.
We all know that she has had a storied past but along with the accolades, there has been much controversy. I can see Mr. Trump pointing his finger at Mrs. Clinton's every semblance of impropriety. He will dredge up Whitewater, the death of her friend (the lawyer Vince Foster), Benghazi, the Iraq War, emails (delayed and whitewashed?), that beer-guzzling episode which made the news [OK, maybe only I thought it was improper but, hell, others in politics don't beer guzzle like "girls gone wild"], Bill's dalliance (she failed as a wife you would hear Trump say), her associations with the Waltons (I don't know if there is anything there but Trump would connect the fact that both are from Arkansas and Bill was Governor there), Bill's incarceration of Blacks stats, and her refusal to release her speeches* could also be GOP anti-Clinton fodder.
Now, if anyone could emulate the acerbic Mr. Trump, it is a political woman and Mrs. Clinton would effortlessly join the fray but, imho, she would walk away leaving us with no clear choice to make between pitbulls.
Let us now consider the humble Bernie Sanders. What could the dogmatic Mr. Trump unleash against him? That he is a socialist? Hardly news to the undecided and actually a selling point to many. Here, poor Mr. Sanders may fall victim to the Blacks, many of whom have traditionally fallen for McCarthyism. But, by the Grace of God and police behavior, that may begin to assuage and they just might "wake up" as per Spike Lee. All Mr. Sanders has to do is point out--again and again, if he has to--that many of our NATO partners are socialist even if the GOP would have you believe that they have accomplished this via some magical act that we are not privy to. When Mr. Sanders was asked recently at the CNN Town Hall if it was not true that the President should also represent the rich, Mr. Sanders lost an opportunity to reply, "Yes, but they'll get no representation from me WITHOUT taxation." [greedy parasites].
If Mr. Sanders ran against Mr. Trump, it would be--in the eyes of progressives and the undecided--a clear cut decision devoid of uncertainty. The Democratic superdelegates should keep this blogging under advisement.
I would like to end this blog by trying to keep Mr. Sanders honest. His nod to the rich (Bill Gates is an example of a good billionaire he said) is uncalled for and tells me you are going to think twice before taxing them proportionately. I can't help thinking this. His acknowledgement of Hillary Clinton as a respected friend only says to me that he's bucking for the VP in case he fails in his present pursuit. All right, so he's a political animal. He would not have gotten to where he is by pursuing Trump-like tactics. But, on the other hand, he is a U.S. revolutionary and U.S. revolutionaries burn fences and only later do they mend them. On that count, Mr. Trump--albeit a revolutionary of a different ilk--is ahead.
*I myself suspect fire from her smoke screen that "all should release speeches." I think this because a) we know what the GOP says behind closed doors (we have the Romney spy to thank for that), so, there would be little for a Liberal to gain and b) what would the GOP gain from hearing her speeches? Would it be that she doesn't side with the elite rich? Hardly; again, that would be expected by the GOP. So, that leaves us with the Liberals not knowing if she promised Wall Street more of the Obama-type concessions or promised not to increase the minimum wage to beyond a still-stagnant $12 an hour. I suspect that there is something very damaging to her her avowed Liberalism.
We all know that she has had a storied past but along with the accolades, there has been much controversy. I can see Mr. Trump pointing his finger at Mrs. Clinton's every semblance of impropriety. He will dredge up Whitewater, the death of her friend (the lawyer Vince Foster), Benghazi, the Iraq War, emails (delayed and whitewashed?), that beer-guzzling episode which made the news [OK, maybe only I thought it was improper but, hell, others in politics don't beer guzzle like "girls gone wild"], Bill's dalliance (she failed as a wife you would hear Trump say), her associations with the Waltons (I don't know if there is anything there but Trump would connect the fact that both are from Arkansas and Bill was Governor there), Bill's incarceration of Blacks stats, and her refusal to release her speeches* could also be GOP anti-Clinton fodder.
Now, if anyone could emulate the acerbic Mr. Trump, it is a political woman and Mrs. Clinton would effortlessly join the fray but, imho, she would walk away leaving us with no clear choice to make between pitbulls.
Let us now consider the humble Bernie Sanders. What could the dogmatic Mr. Trump unleash against him? That he is a socialist? Hardly news to the undecided and actually a selling point to many. Here, poor Mr. Sanders may fall victim to the Blacks, many of whom have traditionally fallen for McCarthyism. But, by the Grace of God and police behavior, that may begin to assuage and they just might "wake up" as per Spike Lee. All Mr. Sanders has to do is point out--again and again, if he has to--that many of our NATO partners are socialist even if the GOP would have you believe that they have accomplished this via some magical act that we are not privy to. When Mr. Sanders was asked recently at the CNN Town Hall if it was not true that the President should also represent the rich, Mr. Sanders lost an opportunity to reply, "Yes, but they'll get no representation from me WITHOUT taxation." [greedy parasites].
If Mr. Sanders ran against Mr. Trump, it would be--in the eyes of progressives and the undecided--a clear cut decision devoid of uncertainty. The Democratic superdelegates should keep this blogging under advisement.
I would like to end this blog by trying to keep Mr. Sanders honest. His nod to the rich (Bill Gates is an example of a good billionaire he said) is uncalled for and tells me you are going to think twice before taxing them proportionately. I can't help thinking this. His acknowledgement of Hillary Clinton as a respected friend only says to me that he's bucking for the VP in case he fails in his present pursuit. All right, so he's a political animal. He would not have gotten to where he is by pursuing Trump-like tactics. But, on the other hand, he is a U.S. revolutionary and U.S. revolutionaries burn fences and only later do they mend them. On that count, Mr. Trump--albeit a revolutionary of a different ilk--is ahead.
*I myself suspect fire from her smoke screen that "all should release speeches." I think this because a) we know what the GOP says behind closed doors (we have the Romney spy to thank for that), so, there would be little for a Liberal to gain and b) what would the GOP gain from hearing her speeches? Would it be that she doesn't side with the elite rich? Hardly; again, that would be expected by the GOP. So, that leaves us with the Liberals not knowing if she promised Wall Street more of the Obama-type concessions or promised not to increase the minimum wage to beyond a still-stagnant $12 an hour. I suspect that there is something very damaging to her her avowed Liberalism.
Comments
Post a Comment