The general consensus among pundits, and confirmed by scientific polling since, is that Hillary Clinton won the presidential debate on Monday night. I would agree with that consensus, but I still think she is a weak candidate. She reminds me in many ways of the last candidate who ran to succeed a two-term Democrat: Al Gore in the 2000 election. What I am about to say concerns Gore’s skills as a campaigner; as a human being and activist, I have great admiration for the work he’s done.
If there was ever a candidate for president who had the wind at his back, it was Al Gore in 2000. He ran right at the crest of the longest economic boom in the history of the United States – the average unemployment rate during that election year was 3.925 percent, and by virtually every other quantifiable metric of success and good governance, America was a thriving place.
The federal budget was running a surplus for the third year in a row, and projections of future surpluses were projecting that the entire national debt of the United States would be paid off late last decade. Those projections, by the way, weren’t by liberals trying to game expectations. The following were remarks by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, to the Bond Market Association, White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia:
“Today I want to address a subject in which your group and the Federal Reserve share a keen interest–the paydown of the federal debt and its implications for the economy and financial markets. While the magnitudes of future federal unified budget surpluses are uncertain, they are highly likely to remain sizable for some time. The dramatic improvement in projections of the budget balance in recent years reflects, in large part, the pickup in underlying productivity growth in the U.S. economy, which has boosted corporate profits and household incomes and thereby tax receipts. In effect, we built a tax structure on the assumption that the economy would grow over time at rates around those seen from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s, and this structure has generated considerably more revenue as the economy’s underlying growth rate has risen. Restraint on expenditures also has contributed to the brighter outlook. Tight limits on spending were imposed in response to the large deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s, and defense spending was reduced following the end of the Cold War.”
The country was (relatively, at least) at peace. There was a total of one U.S. military member killed as a result of hostile fire during Bill Clinton’s entire presidency, plus 75 who were killed as a result of terrorist attacks. (There were a larger number killed during most individual months of George W. Bush’s two terms in office).
So, Al Gore’s pitch should have been simple:
“Hi, America. Have you enjoyed the last eight years of peace and prosperity? Would you like more of that? Vote for me this November.”
It should not have even been close. Gore, or for that matter virtually ANY Democrat, should have run on the record of competence of the previous eight years, and absolutely crushed whatever unlucky soul the Republicans found to run against him. Florida should have been 200,000 votes in the Democratic nominee’s favor. The national margin should have been in the millions.
That it wasn’t indicates the remarkable weakness of Gore as a campaigner.
Given the dire economic and foreign policy situation handed to President Obama when he took office in 2008, he’s done a pretty remarkable job fixing what was broken, but in the present election cycle, the wind that ought to be at the back of Hillary Clinton is not so much the current economic and national security climate, but the disorganized, demolition-derby of a campaign being run by her opponent, Donald Trump.
While Hillary Clinton has a narrow lead in the polls, a more gifted politician would be absolutely crushing him. Donald Trump is what my U.S. Army leaders used to call a “target-rich environment.” He has spouted blatantly racist and nativist nonsense repeatedly and publicly; his supporters include open racists like David Duke and the more or less openly fascist “Alt-right”; he publicly and unapologetically demeaned a former Miss Universe for gaining weight; he spends a majority of practically every speech robustly and earnestly lying – I could go on, but it would induce a deepening despair for this country that isn’t good for my mental health.
When it comes time to pull the lever for a candidate in a month or so, I will happily vote for Clinton for president, and I expect that a narrow majority of my fellow citizens will give her the edge and elect her to be our next president.
If I’m right about that, I actually expect that she will be a reasonably competent chief executive. Putting aside her lack of charisma, she is actually whip smart, and the level of organizational competence in her campaign is quite impressive.
She’ll be a very competent administrator; unfortunately, what the country desperately needs is a bold reformer. I’ll have more thoughts on that in next week’s column.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand.
Sharing is caring!
Matt,
I’m sure you have seen these bumper stickers around:
http://bit.ly/1QbP1AD
About sums up my opinion this election year.
Cheers!
I agree with you on very little, if anything. Until now that is – you just hit the nail on the head.
Thanks.
As an aside, “I agree with you on very little.” How do you know?
It is my opinion based on your posts. I find them interesting, but my opinion differs from yours on most, if not all of your posts. That said, I find them interesting to read and think over.
That’s fair. Although, you have me at a bit of a disadvantage.
Two points Matt makes need correction:
“combat deaths” – 18 soldiers were killed at Mogadishu. This is officially classified as a ‘terrorist action.. 57 other soldiers were killed in terrorist actions during the Clinton years.
” three budget surpluses” — This is simply not true. If there is a ‘surplus’, the deficit would go down. The national debt increased in every year of the Clinton era. Democrat Senator Hollings put it thusly: ‘So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin–all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. – October 28, 1999
You cannot borrow yourself into a surplus
Correction: “the deficit would go down”
That should have read: the debt would go down.
Al Gore should have easily won the 2000 election. All he had to do was use President Clinton and it would have been over.
In retrospect, the Democratic party made a huge mistake by not getting Bill Clinton to resign. Gore would have been President and the overall economy and world situation would certainly have appeared good enough to make him a shoo-in for election in 2000. . Imho folks were tired of the Clinton scandals and therefore open to something different. Gore didn’t come across well enough to give voters confidence that he would be different. Overall, they were just undecided and the close election showed that.
Dear protesting and sitting-this-one-out voters,
More than ever before, I’m trying to understand your decision in this election.
Logic tells me you don’t mind that your protest vote or not voting will benefit Trump, and you have nothing to fear by doing this. Or, maybe you don’t live in this country, and you have the luxury of watching the results of your choice from afar. It seems that you consider Hillary more evil than Donald, so it’s not a problem for you.
But your choice is a problem for me!
So, I look at why I decided to vote for Hillary after Bernie lost.
After self reflection, I came up with some questions for you based on my experience living 65 years as a non religious Jew in America.
1. Have you ever experienced anti semitism in your town, school or workplace?
(I have.)
2. Have you ever feared for the safety of your immediate family members, who include
Muslim, Japanese, Dominican, Korean and Haitian?
(I have.)
3. Have you ever experienced what it’s like being discriminated against as an outsider in
your neighborhood, school or work?
(I have).
4. Have you ever been bullied by both children and adults at school and work for being the
child of Jewish parents?
(I have.)
5. Have you ever feared revealing your ethnicity to bigoted fellow students or co-workers?
(I have.)
6. Have you ever looked at photographs of your family members killed in the Holocaust?
(I have.)
If you can answer yes to any one of these, why are you supporting a Nazi sympathizer?
If you can’t answer yes to any one of these questions, #3 will find you eventually under the
Trump presidency you are enabling.
Sincerely,
Jane Sheftel Hara
I’d like to be clear on the point being made by Ms. Hara, before commenting further:
Just who does Ms Hara believe that ‘Adolf Trump’ is going to round up and take to the soon to be built concentration camps? Will it be the Jews, the Mexicans or the Muslims that will be loaded in the waiting cattle cars?
Rumor has it that there are some facilities that are already being built. If Trump wins, these facilities will be used as internment camps. If Hillary wins, these facilities will be used to house all the confiscated guns.
“Joking” about concentration camps is disturbing and anti Semitic.
Your comments conveniently illustrate what Trump is really doing: Giving the thumbs up to expressing hate.
It’s sad that your “humor” is a distraction from your own discomfort with those not “like” you, or people of color invading your territory. But please don’t criticize my feelings, which you can’t understand.
That said, it is now with great pleasure that I share this article with you.
Even you have nothing on what these Trump supporters have to say.
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/opinion/20160930/dana-milbank-more-bigotry-from-the-trump-brigade
WOW!! Never has so much been read into so little by someone with so few (w/ apology to WC).
Let’s back up a bit. You made a ludicrous statement by calling Trump a Nazi sympathizer. I matched that absurdity with an absurdity of my own. You took high umbrage to my comment and come back with calling me both anti-Semitic and racist?
Your assumptions are both huge and 180 degrees off the mark. You know nothing about me and your comments indicate you to be a deeply troubled person.
Let me tell you three things: 1) when my sons were middle school age we took them to DC. One of the highlights was a tour of the holocaust museum. Something my wife and I felt was important. 2) Last year on vacation we visited Mauthausen (look it up) and found it to be a remarkably moving experience on several levels. 3) My wife and I attended for many years a mixed race church in Richmond because of the love, spirit and community outreach we felt and supported.
So, your perceptions are wrong. If you want to continue this dialogue, you can start with an apology.
“…mental illness” never created any idea, motivation or belief system. “Mental illness” refers to the way our minds can distort the ideas we get from the world, but the ideas come from somewhere.”…”The reason a certain kind of person loves talking about “mental illness” is to draw attention to the big bold scary exceptional crimes and treat them as exceptions. It’s to distract from the fact that the worst crimes in history were committed by people just doing their jobs–cops enforcing the law, soldiers following orders, bureaucrats signing paperwork. That if we define “sanity” as going along to get along with what’s “normal” in the society around you, then for most of history the sane thing has been to aid and abet monstrous evil.”
We love to talk about individuals’ mental illness so we can avoid talking about the biggest, scariest problem of all–societal illness. That the danger isn’t any one person’s madness, but that the world we live in is mad.”
-Arthur Chu
Journalist
Thank goodness for cartoons!
This perfectly explains why I “over-reacted” to the sarcasm and “humor” about concentration camps and internment camps.
If anyone needs to apologize, it’s people who lack sensitivity to this being real and are not willing to listen and understand.
https://www.facebook.com/fusionmedianetwork/videos/1252048551529056/
Jane, During WWII, the Nazi’s visited my father’s family home on several occasions. You see, my grandmother’s illegitimate father was the son of a wealthy Jewish family in Hamburg. When this family found out that my great grandmother was with child, they quickly severed all ties and sent my great grandmother packing.
The Nazi’s that knocked on my grandmother’s door were responding to reports from neighbors, as she had a very Mediterranean complexion. The only thing that saved my grandmother, as well as here four children, was the fact that there was no documentation of who here father was.
I guess I should be thankful that my dad and his family survived WWII, I’m just not certain who or what I should be thankful to. Perhaps to bigotry and prejudice?
Thanks, Thomas.
Jane,
There is much to admire regarding Germany and the German people. It is unfortunate (but understandable) that one subject overrides all others for far too many people. Here is a piece I wrote four years ago, that serves as an example of what I am referring to, Part I:
http://beniciaheraldonline.com/dietrich-bonhoeffer-faith-and-redemption-in-the-garden-of-evil/
At the end of the comments is a link to the second part.
Thank you, Dennis.
Dennis and Thomas,
You are correct that I jumped to conclusions about both of your comments. I apologize.
Hopefully, the cartoon about micro aggressions can explain why I was so quick to go on the defensive.
Both of your stories and articles were interesting and heartfelt.
By the way, please explain why you think it’s absurd that I called Donald a Nazi sympathizer. He does nothing to distance himself from recognized anti-semites and hate mongers.
Looking forward to your response.
Jane
“He does nothing to distance himself from recognized anti-semites and hate mongers.”
Three comments:
1) Can you name specific actions taken by Trump or cause supported that fall into that category?
2) What you describe is a far cry from being a Nazi. (even if toned down by the ‘sympathizer’ comment.
3) Carter, the Clintons, Obama have all sided with Hamas, the Palestinians and Yassar Arafat, All are terrorists who desire to eliminate the Jewish race. Yet all four democrats I named have long supported through US tax dollars these groups, Personally I find that far more troubling then anything Trump has done.
Dennis,
Beginning with #1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitismThis
http://www.snopes.com/2015/07/14/donald-trump-nazi-tweet/
“Before many Americans were aware of the calamity confronting Europe’s Jews, Geisel …drew editorial cartoons for PM that warned readers about Hitler and anti-Semitism and attacked the “America First” isolationists who turned a blind eye to the rise of fascism and the Holocaust. (Trump adopted “America First” as one of his campaign themes).
“The original former Mrs. Trump, Ivana, did a Vanity Fair interview back in 1990. Like most Vanity Fair pieces it was a big exposé on her time with the Donald:
Donald Trump appears to take aspects of his German background seriously. John Walter works for the Trump Organization, and when he visits Donald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, “Heil Hitler,” possibly as a family joke. Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. Kennedy now guards a copy of My New Order in a closet at his office, as if it were a grenade. Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.”
As for #3:
The Israeli, Palestinian and Hamas situation is loaded with so many layers and history, I find it troubling that simplistic statements such as these are made.
Why isn’t Israel’s geographical location mentioned in this statement? The country is in the prime location for a military base and strategizing.
As Tom Lehrer sang, “Everybody hates the Jews.”
When you say “sided,” do you mean recognize them as a people?
Also, they recognize Arafat as spokesman for the Palestinians.
Most interesting is that the very far right and the very far left agree and promote anti-semitism.
When I have time, I’d like to say more about #3.
Meanwhile, can you name specific actions and statements that support what you stated in #3?
Thanks,
Jane
The ‘Nazi’ ‘Stormtroopers’ picture? really?
So we are to believe that because Donald is a ‘Nazi sympathizer’ (your words) he decided to use pictures of his hero’s to try and attract attention for his campaign.
The alternate is that a young intern pulled a stock photo from a website and liked the image. He then posted it, not realizing the impact. The picture was immediately removed.
(the picture is actually of WWII re-enactors and not Nazi’s.)
I’m not interested in playing guessing games with the picture. I’m mostly interested in your thoughts about the content of the two links.
Guessing games? The information I posted was all available at your link. Did you not read the link you posted?
Wow. I’m not communicating very well with this one.9
I did read that in the link, but it didn’t seem to be important to make my point.
What was important is that the graphic is an example of his campaign to appeal to white supremacists and the David Duke followers. The pictures don’t have to be examined as real or not real Nazis; that’s irrelevant because the message is clear.
I’m wondering why you didn’t include proof of your assertions nor answer any of my questions as well. Since you don’t seem to be willing to do that, I can only assume there is no proof.
I’m sorry you don’t want to have a discussion, but choose instead to attack my “absurdities” without any response about yours.
Thank you for at least engaging in some way. You could have just ignored my comments altogether; the outcome would have been exactly the same.
At least I gave it a try.
Reality can jump up and bite, but there are people who can’t see it.
I won’t respond again.
Jane
“New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the far-left, radical Islam, and the far-right, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, is, in fact, tantamount to demonization, and that, together with an alleged international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols, and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.[1]
Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel, or double standards applied to its conduct, may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism.[2]
Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence political debate.”
-Wikipedia