What's at Stake In Iowa and New Hampshire

Let’s get down to brass tacks. For Democrats the presidential election is not going to be about a revolution. Rather, it will come down to protecting the domestic legacy of Barack Obama and the myriad of progressives who preceded him and extended equality and opportunity to millions of minorities, be they of color, religious sects or gender, not to mention the tens of millions of middle class families of all backgrounds created by legislation and regulations that supported and protected workers. A Republican victory, whomever is the GOP standard bearer, would roll back 80 years of progressive legislation and enforcement.

So the question boils down to, which Democrat has the best chance of keeping the Oval Office blue: Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton or Martin O’Malley?

O’Malley might be a good man. He has not aroused any semblance of passion behind his candidacy. On the other hand, as much as Sanders engenders passionate followers his phenomenon is reminiscent of the debacles fostered four decades ago by anti-Vietnam War candidates Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. Perhaps it is because too many Democrats are too young to remember or have not been taught the consequences of a quixotic candidacy, they are ignorantly eager to adhere to Sanders’ banner. They would follow him to sure defeat in a presidential election even against a divisive Republican such as Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. I’m sorry, but the country is simply not ready for a Social Democrat, a Jewish Social Democrat, born in Brooklyn, to be president.

Clinton is not an ideal candidate. But her pluses outweigh the minuses. Last time out in 2008 her campaign engendered more passion. Fatigue might have set in this time among many of her supporters, but as November grows nearer I believe they will be re-energized by the prospect of electing the first woman president, especially someone who has the wide-ranging experience she possesses.

Her challenge once securing the nomination will be to bring into her tent disaffected Bernie-backers. Otherwise, as Hubert Humphrey and the nation found out, a less than solidly unified Democratic Party will result in a Republican victory and this time the winner would be much more regressive than Richard Nixon.

Nixon had to work with a Democratic Congress and Senate. Both houses will be Republican in 2017. Imagine the social network legislation, the worker-consumer-environmental protections and the civil rights laws that would be gutted by a triumvirate of conservative Republicanism. (Are you shuttering at the prospect? I did when writing that sentence.)

Most importantly, the next president may well have the opportunity to nominate two to four Supreme Court justices and countless lower court judges. If you cherish the advances of the last 80 years you cannot countenance the prospect of a judicial system tilted to the right for decades to come.

So as Iowans go to their caucuses Monday and New Hampshirites troop to the polls eight days later let’s hope they have perspective. Bernie has been a useful diversion, especially in this age of Trump when crazy passion seems to be restricted to Republicans.

Hillary doesn't need a coronation. But the party, the nation, will not benefit from sidetracking her nomination.

A Parade of Thoughts on Soccer and Sanders

New York City is throwing a ticker-tape parade down the Canyon of Heroes in Lower Manhattan Friday for the United States women’s national soccer team, winner of the World Cup. 

It is a most deserving tribute, but Gilda worried Wednesday morning that a Friday parade during the summer might attract fewer onlookers than past parades for World Series and Super Bowl winners. To which I replied, tongue in cheek, “that’s okay, after all the parade is for women and they are already used to getting less than men get.”

Gilda smiled wryly, perhaps remembering a story from Tuesday night’s CBS News with Scott Pelley. Elaine Quijano reported, “Recently, it was revealed the women’s team will split $2 million for their victory. Germany, which won last years Men’s World Cup, was awarded $35 million.”

She continued, “This year’s figures have not been released, but four years ago the Women’s World Cup brought in almost $73 million. The 2010 Men’s World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion. Those players got $348 million, or 9 percent of the total revenue. The women’s team got a higher percentage with 13 percent, but the bottom line was still much less, $10 million.”

Given the disparity in revenue it is difficult to argue for parity in payouts as compensation is tied to revenue. Clearly the differential should be much lower. 

The situation is not exactly comparable to women receiving lower pay for doing the same work as a man in an organization. That reality is unacceptable. Revenue and profit for a company generally are not contingent on gender when both sexes do the same tasks. There is no 21st century justification for slighting women.

Getting back to the parade, I wonder if Mayor de Blasio tapped into some of his Italian heritage when approving the salute to the athletes. I’m referring to the practice of Roman caesars to stage elaborate games at the Coliseum to divert the populous’ attention from problems at hand. Things haven’t been going exactly Hizzoner’s way lately, so I’m just wondering if shining a little spotlight on America’s most current sweethearts wouldn’t be a nice diversion upon his return from an eight-day vacation out west.

Oy Vey: Bernie Sanders is catching up to Hillary Clinton in the polls. As much as I’d like to see the election of the first Jewish president, let’s be clear about Bernie’s chances—it ain’t gonna happen. Fugetaboutit! 

It’s a long shot, but sure, maybe Bernie can overcome the odds and displace Hillary as the Democratic Party’s nominee. Stranger things have happened, such as Eugene McCarthy’s surprisingly strong turnout in the 1968 New Hampshire presidential primary that prompted President Lyndon Baines Johnson to decide against running for a second term (Johnson, FYI, actually won 49% of the NH vote to McCarthy’s 42%, but as a sitting president his victory was considered Pyrrhic).

The dissension among Democrats that year, following the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, led to the disruption of the nominating convention in Chicago. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey emerged as a scarred presidential candidate. Democrats rallied around him too late to defeat Richard Nixon. 

Four years later the Democrats shot themselves in the foot again by nominating a good man, Sen. George McGovern, but a candidate too liberal for the majority of the country. Nixon won re-election in a landslide.

If Bernie does manage to wrest the nomination from Hillary or any of the other more mainstream candidates, say goodbye to any hope the Democrats will have in keeping the White House in progressive hands. Simply stated, Bernie is too far out for America’s pragmatic center. He will not only lose the presidency but Democrats will be hard pressed to maintain their seats in the Senate and House of Representatives (I’m assuming, of course, the GOP doesn’t similarly inflict damage on itself by nominating an equally far out candidate such as Rand Paul or Donald Trump). 

The upshot—under Republican control of both houses of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court, say goodbye to a woman’s right to choose, to Obamacare, to Social Security as we know it, to labor protections, to any hope hourly workers will see any increase in the minimum wage, to environmental laws, to limitations on Big Business, etc., etc., and so forth. Say hello to more overseas military (ad)ventures, more pandering to the Christian Right, more attempts to restrict individual rights, particularly voting rights. The only helping hand Republicans will provide will be to those digging graves for any remaining New Deal and Great Society legislation. 

Hillary is not a perfect candidate. But she would do a lot better than Bernie in a general election, and that’s what really counts in 2016.

(For a more scientific analysis of Bernie’s flawed chances of securing the nomination, follow this link from The New York Times: http://nyti.ms/1fmZsR2.)