THOSE IOWA CAUCUSES (CIRCUSES) EXPLAINED

The circus tents have all folded and they have all moved on to the next venue. This was the greatest rendition ever of the quadrennial Presidential Primary event that is presented in the State of Iowa in the United States of America. Even when the cast and the show itself is not as outlandish and off the charts as this one was, it is a road show that garners world wide attention as it is the official start of the ongoing unique reality show, the winner of which will be the leader of the most powerful and rich country in the world. 

The chief takeaway messages of the show is that Donald Trump was dished out a brutal first lesson in politics 101 - you need a ground game in politics and his omnipotent bubble has burst. From now on he needs to adapt or die. The  biggest loser on the night was the Establishment GOP who had taken the unusual step of supporting way out Trump rather than Cruz. Hillary has to be satisfied in sneaking a win. This, particularly, bearing in mind that Iowa has a disproportionate number of young Democratic students and the fact that forty - three percent of the Democratic electorate profess to be Democratic Socialists. Iowa was Clinton’s nemesis last time when Obama and Edwards from the left  thrashed her into third place. She now knows that she will go into South Carolina where the race really starts, won 1 and lost 1 rather than 0 and 2. Sanders signaled that he was in this for the long haul and if anyone has any memory of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement engineered by students this is the continuation.

Iowa once again confirmed that it was the representative of the extremes of political opinions in the USA. The GOP traditional candidates Bush, Kasich and Christie combined registered seven percent of the Republican vote. This fact emphasizes the significance of Hillary’s effort in garnering fifty percent of the Democratic vote. The GOP Primary was dominated by outliers Cruz and Trump with Rubio who is yet to make up his mind where he stands, third placed.

Before actually analyzing the results it is useful to look at the freak show that is the Iowa caucus.

WHERE IS THE REALITY SHOW AND WHO ARE THE AUDIENCE

The theater itself is a nondescript Mid Western State with a population of three million of whom only a few hundred thousand are the participants in the quaint form of democracy that Iowa utilizes in selecting its nominees for the Commander in Chief. The process is not the traditional ballot box affair but rather plays out in the form of “caucuses”, in close on 2,000 precincts. There the faithful gather and make their choice. The Democrats sit and debate the issue for hours while the GOP after cheerleading speeches just record a vote. The latter count up all the votes in the state in the normal fashion and he has the most votes wins. The Dems don’t use that obvious method of deciding who wins rather they have a complicated system called “delegate equivalents” where the precincts share out the delegates apportioned to them. To illustrate the oddity of it all was an example featured on TV  - Hillary won a big victory in one precinct by fifty - three percent to forty - eight percent and yet both candidates received the same number of delegates. How many times this happened and to whom who knows?

The make up of the Iowan population is a throw back to the mid twentieth century demographics of the country - ninety percent white and as such, in and of itself, the result is usually a poor predictor of who will ultimately emerge as the leader of the “Free World”. However it can have profound consequences as to the outcome of the nominees of the respective parties. The demographic itself does a disservice to both parties. The Dems have a far left constituency to contend with. The Republican Party suffer as the body politic is not representative of the American population. The latter has a decidedly different makeup and  have a sizeable body of non caucasion souls who are pivotal in the outcome of the race.

Fairly or unfairly the media turns the world inside out on the basis of the Iowa caucuses with its few hundred thousand voters. The mythology of its significance was ramped up a million notches when it heralded the start which turned Obama from a celebrity to the subsequent American President.

So onto the review and whether expectations were met and most importantly the significance of what transpired in this rural outpost of the great American continent.  

IMPORTANCE TO CLINTON

As powerful as the Obama appeal was in 2008 the consensus in both the Clinton and the President’s camps was that it was organization and getting the players to the caucuses that played the major role in his success rather than his  charisma per se.  Hillary chose to pump flesh and go from diner to diner while Bernie relied more on the movement. Hillary as a result of bitter experience produced a ground campaign that was more comprehensive then Obama’s. She had a captain in all eighteen hundred of the precincts whereas Barak only had twelve hundred. She needed too as the Iowan Democratic demographics did no favor her campaign in 2016 anymore than it favored her in 2008.

Hillary also has had to deal with the problem that the more you are around the more they will find something to have a go at you. Even more frustrating for a reformer politician is to counter the radical rhetoric from an opponent that you know has no chance in effecting what he claims.  She has avoided the temptation to get paternalistic and rather cheered on the enthusiasm Sanders has engendered. (Oh for the Westminster model for selecting the party leader).

Even though her win was razor thin, barring a bizarre Federal indictment, Hillary has to still be the odds on favorite to win the nomination and then the Presidency. Ironically and this whole scenario is full of irony at the end of the day the outcome mattered least to Clinton. Her firewall after New Hampshire is almost impenetrable. In the words of David Axelrod, the zen master behind the Obama era, Democratic primary voters can afford the luxury of voting for Bernie in the full knowledge that he cannot ultimately cannot win the nomination. Hillary has to be happy that she escaped the bullet that was flying at her and can move to South Carolina with the primaries at least split.

IMPORTANCE TO SANDERS

Jay H. Ell believes that an Iowa victory was far more important to The Berne than Hillary. It would have given him a head of steam to add to his expected victory in New Hampshire which is in his backyard. But how on earth can he win enough delegates thereafter is a mystery. He has to imagine that if you take on the role similar to Obama it is written in the wind that your fate will be the same as his. As he didn’t win Iowa the magic spell has been broken and the reality of hard politics is soon to be upon him.

Even if he had had a really big win Jay H. Ell does not rate his chances to be the Democratic nominee. His frustration is palpable as he cannot understand why any progressive would want to support Hillary when he is offering so much more. Why would the labor unions support her and not him? Why don’t the minorities recognize that his message is universal and in the long run offers more then Hillary’s measured manifesto? His message that Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street is not really resonating. His argument that she isn't progressive is also a hard sell when Obama maintained she was the one person who was able to translate progressive policies into reality. 

Even at this late stage he cannot comprehend how politics works and the difference between being an activist and a politician. Never the less the Democratic Party owes him a debt of gratitude for focussing the party platform on the economic inequity issues that are central to the American debate. He will be around for the duration as he has the money and support to continue and his presence is of inestimable value in framing the debate.

IMPORTANCE TO CRUZ.

Cruz had he lost would have been in a far worse boat politically than a losing Sanders. He has staked out the Republican Conservative position. He worked the state as hard as Hillary did and his organization has produced results. He has laid it on a line that he is the Conservative hope for all to see and hear. However, where does he go from here? He has the full weight of the Republican establishment against him. They may not be able to anoint a nominee but can certainly block one. His future begins or ends in South Carolina.

Never the less his beating of the bombastic billionaire, defying the polls, has to be the story of the night. This only marred by the allegations against him for "dirty tricks" by claiming that Ben Carson was leaving the race and the votes should go to him.

IMPORTANCE TO THE DONALD

Trump has been the focus of the script of the 2016 Presidential elections. He has demagogued his way to the forefront of every media medium. He has insulted and made outrageous xenophobic statements appealing to the lowest common denominator in the party. He has deviated from the Party Line in economic areas that jive with the blue collared base of the faithful. Social security and Medicare he has labeled sacrosanct and he will take on the corporations in their outsourcing of jobs and the drug companies on their monopoly on drug pricing. He has shown an uncanny empathy for where the electorate is at and in effect has refashioned the GOP to his message.

So ironically the candidate who is leading the national Republican race by double digits had the most to win or lose in these caucuses. With his loss the spell of his omnipotence has been broken. He is a loser by his own definition although he will spin it as if he had won.

So this race was very important to Trump. He now has to redefine his candidature in terms of “you win some you lose some” rather than “the polls show that the whole of America wants him”. In fact the polls show he is the candidate with the largest negatives.

IMPORTANCE TO RUBIO

Rubio made more than a respectable showing giving him a credible chance to win the Republican nomination. In another world the nomination fight would have been between him and Jeb or him and Kasich or Christie. The latter three establishment governors are all hoping to become the  party nominee after New Hampshire.  The good Rubio showing in Iowa will give him a bump there and he could become the Romney of 2016 who hung around, in second place, till the others all dropped out. The money will now pour in for Rubio.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

So the elephants, the clowns, the ringmasters and the crew have packed up and moved on to New Hampshire. Tiny white New Hampshire, Bernie’s neighbor, has to be soundly in his column. Hillary has a good ground game and her objective is just to be competitive. While Bernie gets a bit more negative Hillary cheers him on as she needs the youth if she becomes the nominee. 

The contest is far far more important to the GOP which is in a shambles. There is a last gasp effort by the Christie, Bush and Kacish, the middle of the road GOP crowd. Trump has another chance to translate his poll numbers into reality and this race is far more important to him then he begins to realize. Another loss and even he can't argue that he is not a loser. Cruz and Rubio have got to consolidate so as not to confirm that Iowa is the freak show everyone accepts that it is. White New Hampshire also has its craziness where it does not matter which party a citizen is in as you can chose either primary to vote in. Nearly half of the State’s voters are in fact officially independent. Traditionally this primary has produced surprises.

South Carolina, Nevada and Super Tuesday then follow and after that it could be all over bar the shouting. Bernie is not a Barak and his appeal has to be limited. The only impediment to a Hillary Presidency lies outside of the political field. On the Republican side no candidate has produced a manifesto that could appeal to the changing demographic of America and it is a wide open. 

The presidential election production, after a short run in the off Broadway, whites only, venues of Iowa and New Hampshire, finally gets into Broadway prime time and that is where the rubber hits the road. 

COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE DONALD AND THE BERNE

The 2016 Presidential nomination race has resulted in the stunningly unforeseen happenstance of two way out non party backed contenders leading their respective early races. The prolonged domination of Donald Trump in the Republican race and Bernie Sanders in the Democratic contest has dumbfounded political pundits and led their respective party establishments to scratch their heads and beat their breasts in sheer frustration and disbelief. Both adversaries have regularly mesmerized crowds of tens of thousands and seem hell bent in defying political gravity. Both have the same mantra - the current political set up and the politicians that run the show have failed their electorate and that message has resonated to the rafters.

There is obviously some common themes in the emergence of this phenomenon and polls have shown that there is a crossover vote between the two camps although the two are polls apart politically. While Jay H. Ell believes that The Donald may well vanquish his field, (Blogs: “Trump's Hostile Takeover of the GOP” and “Can Trump Win the Presidency” ) and that The Berne is far less likely to emerge triumphant, (Blogs: “Can Bernie be Another Barack” and “Why Hillary is Running for Obama’s Third Term”), this does not begin to answer the question why this anomaly has occurred. 

In the education system that Jay H. Ell emerged from essay questions were the norm in examinations. Often these were framed in the form of “Compare and Contrast” two apparently related entities. For example, the question on a medical paper might be  “Compare and contrast rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, or in history, “Compare and contrast the American and French revolutions”. So here we go - compare and contrast Trump and Sanders success in their respective nomination races in the 2016 Presidential race.

STYLE  BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY;

Here the contrast could not be starker. While both are charismatic in their own way Trump is the epitome of glitzy style and fashion where Sanders appears in his ill fitting frumpy old suits and his old fashioned glasses. While the latter is forthright he does not blow his own trumpet which instrument Trump plays night and day. Whereas the election with the Democratic wannabe is all about ideas the Republican contender unashamedly and bellicosely claims it is about him. He can do it all because everyone else is stupid and or a loser. How he gets up and says the things he does without a blush never ceases to amaze. His latest statement is that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue New York and not lose a vote.

While Sanders almost apologetically criticizes individuals, for example, he gave a long explanation as to why he was forced to maintain that Bill Clinton’s behavior was reprehensible, character assassination is the bread and butter of the Trump monologues. Not a speech or a tweet goes by without an evisceration of a critic or opponent. Twenty - two conservative opponents devoted an entire journal, The National Review, criticizing Trump’s flip flopping and chronic inconsistencies. Not a word was addressed in response to the substance other than to spit out that The National Review was a “failing magazine - they did it because they will get nice publicity”. He argued that Glenn Beck who lead the conservative charge was as “dumb as a rock”. He used the attention focussed on him to attack Cruz on immigration, “By the way Ted Cruz was very very weak on illegal immigration. And now all of a sudden because of my stance he got strong”. Cruz being the target du jour and subject to, inter alia, a cynical merciless birther attack as he is threatening Trump in Iowa. He thrives on denigrating anyone who dares to challenge him and his contretemps with Fox journalist, Megan Kelly, has lead him to announce that he will not attend a Republican debate as she is a moderator. It is his way or the highway and thus far it has been his way. (To the media’s discredit they have predictability let it all slide because, guess what, Donald feeds their ratings. They have abandoned their role to challenge statements such as what was he thinking when he joked about shooting someone in Fifth Avenue New York. Ironically, the only one to take Trump on is Fox News. Blog: ”Fox News is the New GOP and Trump is the New Enemy”).

Then there are the outright lies. Bernie other than to extricate himself out of his mess on gun control and attempts to ingratiate himself at this late stage with Hispanics and African Americans has had very few “pinocchios” scored by the fact checkers. With Donald it is a thrill a minute. Most recently he told a New York Times reporter that he would put a forty - five percent tariff on Chinese goods. When confronted with the sequela that higher priced American goods would entail he denied having made the remark. This even when the tape was played back to him.  

PHILOSOPHY and POLICIES

While the central issue surrounding the frustration of the populace, unequal distribution of the country’s wealth, is the red meat for both, their solutions differ markedly. Firstly, the tycoon does not tackle the issue directly by saying that the dissolution of the middle class must be reversed. Rather he claims that he will get rid of what he perceives are the impediments to their prosperity such as the illegal immigrants, the Chinese and “unfavorable” trade agreements. He uses code for the widening gap in income by implying that if he makes “America Great Again” all will be well. Trump does not threaten what the Republicans call “entitlements” such as Medicare and Social Security that GOP establishment seem gung ho to axe. He thereby maintains his populist appeal. Bernie will level the playing field the old fashioned way - tax the rich and distribute it to the poor in the form, for example of a universal single payor health care system and free secondary education. No beating about the bush with The Berne.

While The Donald wears his billionaire status as a badge of honor to Bernie his money is a policy issue and should disqualify him from the race. When Michael Bloomberg, the former Mayor of New York and an even bigger billionaire hinted at joining the race Sanders again used the circumstance to highlight the difference between the oligarchs who own the country and the over ninety - nine percent that are exploited up the ying yang. “We don’t need another billionaire in this race”.

Where Bernie and Donald are idem is on the Iraq war both thought it was a disaster. But there it ends on foreign policy. Whereas the Democrat knows his limitations and steers clear the Republican is ready to take on the world. 

Trump is ready to issue simplistic one liners on anything and everything. Needless to say there isn’t a semblance of detail. Bernie has only one central message - inequity in wealth. Although he elaborates what that all that means in day to day living such as health care for all, he provides no details for nor does he elaborate as to how he will finance his policies. He vaguely states that instead of paying $10,000 to private insurance the citizen will only pay $5,000 in taxes with no basis how this balances out. Infrastructure will be payed for by repatriating the companies oversea money. The rest including free higher education Wall Street will pay for. He is ad idem with Trump in not being realistic as to funding. Trump will get Mexico to pay for his wall and other such inanities. Bernie claims he is a socialist while not explaining how his support for private enterprise fits in. Trump maintains that he is for a free market economy but threatens tariffs and trade restrictions.

THEY BOTH OPERATE ON THE EMOTIONAL LEVEL

They both don’t begin to produce long detailed explanations of how they are going to get it all done. They share a central thrust- an emotional appeal  to the body politic. They represent a mood, a gestalt that reflects a revulsion with the status quo. They both have successfully persuaded tens of thousands that politics should be removed from the political process. All you need is anger and a message. They both leave the conventional candidates frustrated who know how to effect change- in war you need guns and in politics you need votes. To get the latter you need support, you just cannot go it alone to get it done. 

WHAT COULD OR WOULD THEY BOTH DO IF ELECTED?

 They both leave everyone wondering what would happen in the unlikely event that either one became President. Both would give more of the same inauguration speeches. But they would have left us wandering why they hadn’t put together the massive armies of transition teams needed at the change of an administration. Neither one of them have as yet 10 legislators to endorse them. What would Paul Ryan say to Bernie when he called him to the Oval Office and asked him to cooperate with him on his signature legislation of taxing the rich further? Likewise would Chuck Schumer be open to sponsor Donald’s bill to provide the infrastructure to deport eleven million “illegals”? That would not require an expansion of the Federal work force and enlarge government. Will Donald fire the Mexican President when he tells him to suck eggs as he is not paying for a wall that he doesn’t need? 

Foreign relations will be a nightmare for both. The Donald, if the recent comments at Davos and the British House of Parliament are anything to go by, will have to reassure everyone that he was only doing what he had to do to get elected. Putin, at least, will understand. At least he has been consistent there isn’t a country that he hasn’t made a disparaging remark about. The Berne would have to go on a big learning curve and beg Hillary to run the State Department again. She does after all know them all. 

To sum up no angry progressive can disagree with Bernie’s wish list. The problem is that he just cannot deliver. What has he got that Obama hasn’t? Likewise there is no angry conservative that does not connect on a visceral level with Trump. His supporters however do not have the responsibility to face the world wide consequences when they spit out, shamefacedly, in the privacy of their TV rooms, such xenophobic thoughts such as keeping all Muslims out of America. 

If Noam Chomsky would rather vote for Hillary because he thinks that Bernie cannot get it done and John McCain believes that a marriage between Putin and Trump is made in heaven it should send a message to supporters in both parties. One is too good to be true and the other too bad.  

AT THE END OF THE DAY

Both candidates have cashed in on the disgust the body politic have to those that have exhibited at “politics as usual”.

Whatever the outcome the paradigm of Primaries has changed. Distinct approaches have been clearly defined that differ from the well worn pattern. Bernie at a crucial stage has given up on a bit on Iowa or he feels his priority is to continue creating a wave.  So he was off to Minnesota to address a crowd of over ten thousand. Bernie wants to operate politics by a mass movement. Obama, who was an icon, tried it as well and now is in favor of prose rather than poetry in governing. Martin Luther King understood the difference between the politics of democratic protest and legislative change. The former can exhibit massive influence for progress but is not in the business of power to carry it out. Nothing Sanders has done can convince Jay H. Ell that he could get much done as President. The idea is central but it needs translation into enactment which process is clumsy, messy and ugly and nothing to do with the market place per se - ask Lincoln ask Lyndon Johnson.

Donald has made it all about the power of personality. You are voting for a savior. He has consciously trashed convention and common decency. He too is touch and go in Iowa where Cruz may have out organized him but he has taken a massive risk by taking on Fox News. This he has done by announcing that he is opting out of a key debate three days before the Iowa Primary. Fox have deliberately slighted him by calling him a coward who is not up to the job. Like most megalomaniacs he has no sense of proportion or judgement. He is sidetracked into a major battle with a "lightweight" TV journalist while vying for the most powerful position in the world. In August of last year Jay H. Ell blogged, “GOP Primary: The Lunatics are Running the Asylum”. It has only got worse. It remains to be seen whether the American electorate will entrust their future to an unpredictable, shoot from the hip, charismatic, paranoid, megalomaniac, demagogue. It has been done before with disastrous results.

To be continued.

WHY HILLARY IS RUNNING FOR OBAMA’S THIRD TERM

While the electoral mood seems stacked against the status quo as evidenced by the Republican race, (Blog: Can Trump Win the Presidency?), and the unexpected serious challenge mounted by the outsider in the Democratic Primary, quixotic Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton has wrapped herself around Barak Obama’s record and Presidency. While the GOP candidates are sniggering that she represents the Commander in Chief’s third term she just wallows at the prospect of being just that. At present she is the only leading candidate not advocating a revolution of the legislative process, professing to want to consolidate and advance what Obama has achieved.

The mood of the country is anti incumbent and Obama is now very much part of the established order. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have tapped into the activist mood and in some areas even resonate as one voice. The issue paramount in the minds of the tens of thousands that flock to the rallies of these standard bearers, is to reject “politics as usual”. They are tapping into their respective party bases manifest intense anger at the failure of their elected representatives and their Party leaders to reflect the wishes of the electorate. 

OBAMA PART OF THE PROBLEM TO BOTH BASES 

Also, in case Hillary needs reminding, Obama’s approval rates hover around the mid forty percent. While Obama has been slammed from the right for changing the direction of the country he obviously appears far too conservative for a large section of the Democratic base. Oh my oh my only eight short years ago he was hailed as a gale of fresh air. There is nothing like a good dollop of elected office, sauteed with the realities of the workings of politics, to bring one back to the field. It is fair to say that the way he has been vilified by the GOP from the word go and their almost indecent hurry to frame their whole campaign message as if they were running against him should frighten any of the Democrats to steer clear of this blast. Not Hillary, however, she is up front and center in the eye of the storm.

All this contradicts rather than explains why Hillary, who is the other half of the most politically savvy team in America, is only too ready to run as a continuation of the Obama era. Why not rather just not appear loyal to the leader while taking pains to nuance all issues so as to be distinct from him thereby getting the best of both worlds?

THE OBAMA COALITION

In spite of all that effort by the GOP in 2008 and then again in 2012, to their disbelief, Obama was elected and re elected. There was a coalition of groups that held firm to deliver and redeliver the Presidency to him. Obama appears at the end of the day to have failed to meet the expectations of one of his coalition constituents, the fired up youth, but that is only one of his constituencies. The chief constituencies to whom he has more than exceeded expectations are the ever more important and growing minorities, the Hispanics and African Americans. They will not desert him or whoever takes over his mantle. The female and LGBT groups  have already backed Clinton and have to be more than satisfied with the Obama years. So Hillary just has to keep reassuring them all that she is on message and that is nearly the whole battle won. Remember too that only a minority of white voters supported Obama in both elections. So all the pundits that wax eloquent about the Republican field and their chances need reminding that once again they have totally disregarded the existence of the Hispanics and other minorities. In effect the candidates have ignored the GOP 2012 post election report which recommended tailoring their message to these groups if they wished to win.

BUT WHY CAN’T BERNIE WIN THE NOMINATION?

It is patently obvious both parties underestimated the anger out there. So the Democratic Bernie, against all odds, is challenging in Iowa and will probably win New Hampshire as a result of his undiluted message. Hillary cannot appear genuine by trying to outflank him on his radical solutions. She can and does challenge him on how on earth he can translate his message into legislation and how he will find the money to pay for his programs. To the faithful however, too much of that sounds like the language of a reactionary. But she knows that what plays to the Democratic base in the tiny freak shows of Iowa and New Hampshire will not resonate in the next bunch of Primaries that follow in the South and the South West where her message is more likely to ring true.

Bernie’s message has not been tailored to the minorities needs in the rural minuscule state of Vermont, where he has hung out and operated almost exclusively for decades. The total population of the Commonwealth of Vermont is just over 600,000. In this liberal haven there are about 7,000 Hispanics and a similar number of African Americans. So Bernie has not carved out distinct platforms for the needs of those groups. Jay H. Ell believes Sander’s general appeal cannot be enough to the very specific needs of the Obama coalition constituents. It is no use talking about the needs of the ninety - nine percenters if you are about to be kicked out of the country. “Black Lives Matter” is another movement that has only recently been on “The Berne’s”  radar. Again if you believe that your children are at risk of being indiscriminately shot by the cops that has to rank as the priority. Thus each demographic has distinct needs and too much focus to these at this late stage, by Bernie, will smack of opportunism. Vermont is so laid back that Bernie’s support for guns has not been an issue and he his naivety on the significance of the subject on the national scene has underscored his lack of experience in the real world. Hillary has since way back had distinct planks in her manifesto for all the demographics and hence their support.

 While opinions are not unanimous as to who won the most recent debate in South Carolina, Hillary must be more than pleased with her performance. The debate was sponsored by the Black Coalition and Obama’s agenda was mentioned by Clinton far more often than usual while Bernie stuck to his general stump speech. While the pundits waxed on the fact that Hillary did not halt The Berne’s march to Iowa and New Hampshire they payed no attention to the National Polls that came out the next day that still put Hillary more than twenty percent points ahead. As Jay H. Ell points out below Clinton can lose these two states and still win comfortably.

NOW WHAT?

The Obama coalition will hold for a general election but even he needed more support. Hillary would eventually have to win back the activists that have propelled the erstwhile Sanders to prominence. She has moved to the left as a result of his candidacy. It is fair to say that there is not the same level of acrimony between the Democratic contenders that has been evidenced by their Republican counterparts and should she emerge victorious Bernie’s supporters will back her. 

Clinton can argue that she represents the practical application of the shared ideals of the Democratic Party, is on message and moreover she can deliver. Clinton is in a better position to prevent a chunk of the whites, who whatever they represent, are always called “Reagan Democrats” from not switching to the GOP. To a certain extent her Secretary of State experience and the fact that she is considered more of a hawk than most Democrats will help cut down the bleeding if there is any.

But then too there is Bill. It is undisputed that he is associated with the only period of prosperity in America since Reagan and for those who want to play the Monica card it didn't work when the issue was hot twenty years ago so why should it have any traction now. She is gradually introducing hime into the campaign and nobody will argue that he still is adored by a broad section of the electorate.

Finally, Hillary has unprecedented support and endorsements from nearly all the Democratic legislators, Governors and Party officials. She has close on five hundred in her column and Sanders has less than five. Although that does not make much difference early on it will later in the nomination process and will ensure that the party’s organization is well greased to bring out the vote in the Presidential election. 

SO WHAT IF BERNIE…..?

Jay H. Ell could be totally wrong and after rousing wins in Iowa and New Hampshire “The Berne” can set the primary process on fire and move triumphantly to the nomination. There are several pundits who believe that Sanders will win the Dem nomination. Their argument is really that this is a replay of the Obama Clinton race in 2008 where Hillary was also odds on favorite to win and Obama just blast passed her with a more progressive agenda. They believe lightning can strike Hillary twice.

There are many differences to the 2008 scenario that are being ignored by the pundits who are crying de ja vu.  Not the least of the contrasts are reflected in the Bernie and Barak distinct personae.  To liken the two as peas in a pod is a bit of a stretch. (Blog: Can Bernie be Another Barak?”)  Hillary’s organization was weak then and even though she suffered devastating blows early on, including South Carolina, she strengthened as the campaign went on and had Michigan and Florida been given their full weight of delegates the race could well have taken a turn in her favor. At the end of the day Obama had fifty - two percent of the Democratic delegates to Clinton’s forty - eight percent. Also Obama had double the “super delegates” thereby giving him more party establishment support than her and putting him over the top. The latter gravitated to Barak when it appeared that he would win. Obama’s organization and ground game was far better than Hillary’s. None of this applies to the current race.  

But still what if…. 

The current polls show that Sanders will beat any of the GOP potentials. However nobody accepts these as reality nor do any of the GOP candidates regard him seriously.  At the recent GOP debate Kasich burst into laughter at the suggestion and his prophesy was the Republicans would win all fifty states against him. Democratic Party operatives have finally conceded the presence of the socialist elephant in the room. Led by Senator Claire McCaskill they have warned that the Republicans are ready with their hammer and sickle ads should Sanders win the nomination. And they have well over a billion dollars available for the Presidential campaign. According to another Democratic legislator the only constituencies he would resonate with are the liberal universities.  Should Bernie be the candidate the full wrath of attack adds against socialism, as it is defined in political philosophy, not by him, will descend upon his head. It will be merciless and his honeymoon in Russia will be featured among other morsels. It is hard to imagine him getting passed it all. The conventional wisdom among the Democratic establishment is that his candidature would not only lose them the Presidency it would kibosh the current trajectory to winning back the Senate and making deep inroads in the House of Representatives.

Hence the Democratic establishment are nearly as anxious about Sanders as the GOP are about Trump, (or even worse Cruz). There is no guarantee that Sanders could mobilize the Obama coalition who have fully committed to Clinton. They just may stay at home. Incidentally, if the match up were to be between the Trump and Sanders it would probably be the first time in history that both parties’ nominees were not life long card carrying members . 

AT THE END OF THE DAY

So Jay H. Ell will stick to his guns. The concept of an Obama third term seems the safe way for Hillary to go and if Bernie’s activist supporters need any reminding Obama was their man not so long ago and Hillary’s mantra fifty years ago, without the labels, was more or less where Bernie is today. Obama was slowed, as all transformers have to be, by the political process. Hillary is in a position to get far more done as she is part of the political culture and her sojourn in the Senate was marked by respect on both sides of the aisle. But hold onto your seats as the media salivate and report both the nomination races to be neck and neck. It is what they aimed for in the first place and they are all about ratings. (Blog: “Trump, the Media, Ratings and Reality”).

There are two probable outcomes in the Democratic nomination race.

• The race will continue well into the year. “The Berne” is not going to go away and Hillary’s firewall becomes thicker and thicker as the race progresses. The Vermont Senator is being reinforced by the exited response he is evoking and the large sums of money that his supporters are donating. His message of the financial and political domination by the one percent and the role big money plays in the electoral process is in many ways the overarching cause celebre of our time. 

• This race will reflect whether the Democratic electorate wants to make a definitive statement against the failure of the political process or whether they believe that enough progress has been made and it needs to be consolidated. (The Republicans have already definitely decided that they want to register a protest with no real thought as to how politically the policies they wish to enshrine can be introduced - hence Trump, Cruz, Carson).

OBAMA AND THE MIDDLE EAST MESS

President Obama, barely six months into his Presidency, amidst great excitement bordering on mania, laid out his vision of the Middle East, at the University of Cairo. This followed his sensational emergence as the leader of the world’s most powerful nation. It appears to be a distant memory the expectations that Barak Obama engendered with his historic campaign and election. If it needs reminding, to accommodate the crowd of 75,000 for his Democratic nomination acceptance speech in 2008, a football field was commandeered. His Presidential inauguration oration, in 2009, saw the entire length of the Mall opened for the first time to squeeze in nearly 2,000,000 citizens as he expounded his vision for home and abroad. Just 6 months prior to his inauguration, he addressed, at the Brandenburg Gate in Germany, ecstatic crowds that far exceeded any seen since JFK addressed the Berliners.

The new political rock star spoke of his New World Order. Audiences of tens of thousands were the order of the day wherever he  made a major speech - and this charismatic eloquent orator rarely disappointed. The anticipation and hope that this iconic trailblazer brought to the world was epitomized in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2009. He was the first to agree that this accolade was made in the belief of what his philosophy and leadership might lead to and not what he had achieved to  date. 

Sadly, Obama who is a good and honest man misread the deep divisions and politics in the Middle East. That fact and several events that were totally out of his control made his Cairo declaration, where he laid out his foreign policy priorities and gave hope to the region, now appear wide - eyed.  It is so much easier being an activist agitating for change as opposed to effecting it as the latter needs votes and or the modification of the behavior of others. The first African American President had a touching, if not naive belief in the rationality of all the players and for the life of him he could not imagine reasonable people, in the right circumstances, with America’s leadership not reaching compromise. His modus operandi was based on the assumption that everyone was coming from the same place. (Even in America where he has been transformative he has found it very difficult to bridge the widening gap between the two parties).

At the end of the day he offered very little to follow through on his inspiring oratory that fateful day in Cairo. 

CHANGE THE WORLD ESPECIALLY THE MIDDLE EAST

Besides his ambitious domestic agenda, where he achieved far more success, Obama was going to change the world and thereby make it a both a better and safer place. Central to this was an accompanying desire for America to be non interventionist, have a commitment to support and spread democratic order, and to address the need for a major change in America’s negative attitude towards the Muslim countries. 

First, he had to see to unfinished business. He needed to hasten the troops out of Iraq as had been arranged by Bush 43 and clean out the Taliban in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda had found protection. He even subsequently eliminated Osama Bin Laden with a gutsy call that if gone wrong would have resulted in the usual hate filled criticism that he was constantly subject to. The neophyte President had to have closed his eyes to the looming stormy clouds of chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan’s mission accomplished assessment must have been made more in hope than in sincerity. However, Iraq was not his fault, he never would have ventured there in the first place, and there was no way he was going to go Russian in Afghanistan. He had stated limit objectives which he claimed he had achieved. His main docket now was togetherness with the Muslim countries, a Palestinian and Israeli accord and neutralizing Iran ‘s potential nuclear capability. 

OBAMA’S CAIRO MANIFESTO

He laid out his approach to the Muslim world and the Middle East in a major policy speech in Cairo on June 2009, entitled “A New Beginning”. He dwelt on the rich history of Islam and reassured that America, while at war with extremists, would never be at war with Islam. In addition to the recognized Middle East tensions that he felt needed urgent resolution, he focussed attention on four additional areas that might have provoked some controversy in the Middle East - women’s rights, religious freedom, economic development and education and of course democracy. 

There were vey important subtexts to this manifesto: It took place in non democratic Egypt, which was America’s long standing ally; Following upon his Cairo visit he visited other Arab nations in the region but snubbed Israel; His analysis implied that all the Muslims and Middle East Muslim nations themselves were a homogenous mass and he did not take into account the gaping sectarian and political divisions; He had no foreboding that in stating his democratic priorities he could antagonize the leadership of America’s allies thereby upsetting the delicate balance of American interests in the region.

 The most important factor looming over the speech was that the United States, which was the most powerful country in the world and claimed to value democratic principles above all else, was sending a message of hope which could be interpreted as support to reformers in the region. Obama might well have heeded President Teddy Roosevelt, who even at the turn of the century argued that the USA should not just preach without being able to follow through concretely as that could raise expectations. The region was not to know that for practical purposes Obama was not going to back up his rhetoric with diplomatic support or guns.

WHAT LEAD UP TO TODAY?

The Middle East of 2008 and today is unimaginably altered and the Commander in Chief has found it extremely difficult to cobble together a coherent response to the dramatic changes that have transpired. Two main events followed his hope inspiring intervention in Cairo - The Iranian Green Revolution and The Arab Spring. 

Arab Spring.

The centerpiece of Arab transformations started in 2010 and was labelled “The Arab Spring”. Nearly all the Arab countries were rocked by revolutionary forces that were attempting to overthrow their current nondemocratic and repressive regimes. Four countries saw a government ousted - Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and Libya. Obama’s response was different to all four. He was only vaguely interested in Yemen. Tunisia, a country that did it on its own, was hailed as the success story and the Commander in Chief, post hoc, hailed the new Tunisia as America’s closest non NATO ally. In Libya he supported NATO forces to overthrow Gaddafi. He broke from his generalized non intervention policy and with NATO forces maintained a no fly zone and sent planes to bomb Gaddafi’s troops. In the end Libya, by many accounts is more dysfunctional without its tyrant.

His response to Egypt’s uprisings where Moubarack had been America’s ally for decades, was to have the most profound impact. In this instance he would be heavily into supporting a democratic model no matter what. He made Mubarak’s position untenable by telling him to resign thereby paving the way for the far right Muslim Brotherhood, the only organized political party, to win power. The military backed Moubarak who had maintained relations with Israel and kept some sort of check on Hamas was replaced by the fundamentalist Mohammed Morsi. Besides upsetting Israel no end it send a clear message to the royal family of Saudi Arabia America’s other major ally in the area - if you cannot control your revolutionaries you too are dispensable. As the Egyptian situation evolved and the masses realized that they had replaced one authoritarian rule by a worse one they rose up again. This time the military intervened and replaced Morsi by Sisi which more or less returned back the initial status quo both within Egypt and the region. 

While there were unsuccessful protests in nearly all the other Muslim states only one requires analysis. Syria was another Arab Spring upheaval that Obama was indecisive and all over the show on. This disaster however has dragged on and on with Obama at sixes and sevens as to what to do. He had no desire to mix in. Against all advice he refused to arm any of the moderate  Syrian rebels fearful that the arms may fall into ISIS or Assad’s hands. He drew a line in the sand that he would bomb Assad’s forces if he used chemical weapons but ducked out of it when evidence was provided. Assad’s Syria has precipitated a world wide crisis with 4 million refugees. At home the massive problem that Syria has become has been laid on his shoulders. The argument is that had he intervened in the earlier stages by backing the Syrian rebels Assad would have been out and that his inaction had handed the Middle East’s future to the dictates of Russia.  

Iran’s Green Revolution.

The Muslim world tumult all started a year earlier in Iran. Iranian activists flooded into the streets  in 2009 when hundreds of thousands rose up against the gerrymandered reelection of Ahmadijinedad. What was referred to as “The Green Revolution” was brutally put down by the Iranian government. Obama did literally nothing after his speech had engendered such hope in the region. He saw no merit in “meddling in other countries elections”. Any dream of change of that theocratic totalitarian regime was dashed and American critics wailed that he had abandoned those that had rebelled against America’s biggest enemy in the region. One can imagine the feeling of hopelessness among the Iranian revolutionaries - not even a sustained condemnation of the jack booted Iranian forces or even an attempt at a Security Council resolution

Upshot of Obama’s Policies on Revolutionary Change Following Cairo

By this time Obama had sent three clear messages - one to his allies in the region that he couldn’t be relied on: that fighters for democracy, even in the most brutal regimes who were the USA’s sworn enemies, should not count on any assistance of any sort and most importantly, that rhetoric aside, the USA was not going to be The Big Player in the Middle East.

Obama, despite his vision or perhaps because of it, after nearly 70 years of America intermittently waging wars that went nowhere at vast loss of treasure and youth, was calling it quits.

ISRAEL AND PALESTINIAN PEACE TALKS

Israel is an emotional issue in the USA and one of the few issues that there is ever any bipartisanship on. Bibi Netanyahu, who had caused Bill Clinton endless grief, was not about to make life easier for Barak. He decided to run against Obama from the word go culminating with him campaigning with the Republicans in attempting to kibosh the Iranian nuclear deal. Obama for his part had been briefed by his Chief of Staff, Ehmanuel, an orthodox Jew, who had served with Clinton, not to let the bull headed Israeli Prime Minister, control him. So Obama in more ways than one let Bibi know that he was not getting favored nation treatment to the point of snubbing him as he did after the Cairo visit.

Obama however from day one had George Mitchell the former Democratic Senate Leader and hotshot negotiator ferrying backwards and forwards to reinstate peace talks that were becoming more and more elusive. Abbas like Arafat would never really seal a deal and Bibi, unlike every Israeli Prime Minister before him, didn’t really care, creating settlement after settlement. Obama was forever ambivalent and found the tension between him and the leader of the Jewish State painful. Confiding to his Chief advisor, David Axelrod, another professing Jew, that of all peoples he felt closest to were the Jews and to be labelled an anti semite was unbearable. He never wavered on Israel’s security and their right to defense paying for the successful rocket thwarting Iron Dome for example.

A two State solution in Israel is dead. Hamas is hanging out for a one State Palestine. Israel’s demographic is changing with a growth in population of ultra orthodox Jews who regard  the settlements as religious injunctions making it harder for Netanyahu’s successor to take up the cause again.  Tensions too have never been worse between the leaders of both Israeli and American administrations so Barak has let this one go. 

IRANIAN NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS AND ITS IMPACT ON ISLAM SECTARIAN CONFLICT

The jewel in Obama’s foreign policy ambitions was to curtail Iran’s path to a nuclear capability. Although America was one of six negotiating nations it took the lead and the subsequent settlement was identified with Obama. In his belief that this was the most crucial issue for world peace and American safety he ignored the entreaties of his Middle East allies, Israel, the Sunni Gulf States lead by the long standing ally the Saudis, Egypt and Jordan. The upshot is that the latter states have formed a loose coalition to take on the Shiite Iranian theocracy. Most significantly, other than Jordan, America appears to have lost all its influence on what they do as subsequent events have shown. 

The Saudis have taken the gloves off and are fighting full fledged proxy wars against Iran the most far reaching being in Yemen. The new Saudi King bin Salman has thrown off the traditional veil of Saudi passivity. Their execution of the Shiite cleric Nimr had to be designed to provoke the Iranians. When the “assassination” produced the expected protests in Teheran, Saudi Arabia withdrew diplomatic relations and to Iran’s chagrin the one Sunni State that they had reasonable relations with, Bahrain, followed suit. The Saudis doubled down and are more than satisfied with the outcome. Again, the USA only contribution to the escalation of this massive rift, with its potential to create chaos in the Middle East, was to impotently call for a reduction in tension. Obviously none of the players are taking the slightest notice of what Obama has to contribute. 

So America’s efforts to neutralize Iranian nuclear production have been met with suspicion, to put it at it’s kindest, by its allies. Obama has traded a bloc of allies and his influence in the hope that his deal will hold. In return he has the word of a Satanic regime, a sponsor of terrorism, who behaves erratically openly calling for American destruction on a daily basis while making soothing noises in releasing the American sailors promptly.

Another personal sequel is that Netanyahu is already lobbying his new allies against the possibility that Obama become the next United Nations Secretary General.

ISIS

To many this is the real threat to the Middle East and the world. United States again have  insisted on a coalition of forces in the war against this unspeakably evil manifestation of sectarian violence in the Middle East, bombing selectively not taking any risk to cause civilian casualties. The radically fundamentalist Sunni ISIS filled the void that the Bush firing of Saddam Hussein’s army had created. Together with Saddam’s well trained militia, plus radical Sunni sects emanating from Syrian terrorists, who were the spiritual successors of Al Qaeda, ISIS has violently opposed the Shiite Syrian leaders and their Iranian paymasters. Contemporaneously they are disenchanted with the Sunni Gulf States who they believe are apostates. They have achieved much success to date and have claimed a large chunk of Iraq and Syria territory to create a de facto Caliphate. They also have an international presence and have claimed responsibility for a number of high profile terrorist attacks thereby striking panic across the planet.

America thus far has supported bombing raids on ISIS but seem hampered by the fact that ISIS too is against Assad. Weirdly there is the feeling that eliminating ISIS is bolstering Assad. Putin’s Russia has no such ambivalence as they support Assad.  The Russian premier has unashamedly joined with Iran and Hezbollah to attack both the Syrian rebel forces and ISIS with the emphasis on the former. By so doing they are becoming the key major power in the region and should ISIS be defeated and Assad survive they will have emerged as the major power in that region strengthening both themselves and Iran. It hardly needs reminding that this also pits the two cold war antagonists explosively against each other.

AT THE END OF THE DAY.

It is hard to believe that less than a decade ago the mantra was that all the tension in the Middle East would vanish if only the Israeli Palestinian conflict would resolve. Israel would be in a very weakened position should Putin’s coalition win through with Assad still in power. Hezbollah, armed with Russian equipment will be even more formidable. Iran, which is their number one enemy has a new cynical international backer and that will embolden them further. The Saudi Sunni block have already seen the writing on the wall and have all but declared war on Iran. 

Obama for his part can just be hoping that Russia will burn its fingers in its newest colonial venture, that Assad will be overthrown by Syrian rebels sympathetic to the West or that a political solution will finally be brokered by all parties, that Iran will become more moderate and the spat between it and the Saudi faction will be satisfactorily resolved and that Netanyahu will finally come to his senses stop establishing settlements and make a determined push to raise the standard of living for Palestinians inside and outside of Israel. 

Finally, the next President has his or her work cutout to soothe the USA’s allies in the region and  to cobble a regional policy that hangs together. If the Republican contenders' rhetoric is an indicator fasten your seatbelt and prepare for WW 111.