Are we the New New Democrats?

Clearly the New Democrats are on their way out.

It could very likely happen this round, or may take a bit longer. Either way, I don't see much future for the likes of Pelosi & Co.

Doing the same thing, expecting different results.

Wasn't there a saying about that? Maybe someone can remind me. While you're at it, perhaps a lot of other people could use the reminder too. Such as Nanci Pelosi.

On the rare occasion I catch regular tv (say, in the waiting room of the oil change place), I'm still astonished how half the advertising seems to be for drugs. Are we really ok with that? Aren't drugs a regulated substance, like alcohol and tobacco? Those were outlawed from tv advertising decades ago. What makes these drugs any different?

And what if pharma wasn't allowed to make a 500x profit on them? The insane money pharma spends on tv and print advertising will start to make a lot less sense.

Yes, we spend a lot more on health care per person than other countries. But I wonder, how much more health care per person are we consuming? Making visits to the doctor as regular a thing as visits to the coffee shop isn't working.

Single payer? Of course it can make sense. But it's all an equation. Like algebra. Whatever you do to one side, has to be done to the other. Teach people that health care starts from their vegetable drawer, not from a bottle. Reduce health care profits, and the demand falls proportionally.

Then we have a system that works. (For the people, that is.)

Silly Season in full swing!

Studying the candidates' actual platforms? Why bother? All ones needs to do is look at the media (or even just GD-P) discussion on any given day.

-Premature, top-down endorsements matter far more than regulated, bottom-up ones.

-Bernie doesn't support PP because he called out their sham endorsement.

-Bernie doesn't deserve the black vote, because he won't make reparations part of his platform.

-Dems don't do middle-class tax increases, even when it's a net savings for the consumer.

-Following DNC rules only matters when it's convenient. Calvinball is fine, if the situation calls for it.

What excites me, as with Most Things Bernie, is that all of this shark jumping is likely not going to contain itself to the presidential race.

I think a lot of true stripes are being revealed, and we're in for a lot more than just a new occupant at the WH.

Interesting times.

"Bernie can't win because he's unelectable. And he's unelectable because he can't win."

Really starting to believe that in the end, this circular logic will determine who wins the primary.

If HRH and the MSM can keep enough people suckered into it (because, SCOTUS!), she gets the crown.

If people are able to see through it, he goes all the way.

"Bernie can't do everything he promises" = big, fat Straw Man!

In 1988, the impossible happened: Wayne Gretzky was traded to the LA Kings. (For reference, just know this was big enough that leadership in the Canadian Parliament considered trying to block it.) For me personally, it couldn't have been better. We had decided to take the plunge and order season tickets, only days before The Trade was announced. A true gift from the hockey gods!

What did it mean? Nobody really knew. Before then, the Kings had some great players, but could never quite pull it together. They had the dubious distinction of being able to score 3, 4, 5 goals in a game and still manage to lose! On a regular basis. Certainly Gretzky, known almost as much for his leadership as his playing ability, would greatly help to pull the team together. And he certainly did.

What's the point? That even when you manage to hire someone widely regarded as the most dominant player in the history of all team sports, THERE IS NO PROMISE that adding him will convert your losing-record team into the league champion. To claim otherwise is entirely disingenuous.

So what happened? After 5 years as an LA King, Gretzky took them to the Finals. They didn't win (didn't make a very good showing, really), but the three series before that were absolutely mind-blowing. Worth every penny. As was just being able to be there to see the Cup on your home ice.

But that's only part of it. Much more important was that Gretzky made hockey a big deal. Not just in So Cal, but throughout the west and south. Six new teams were added to the NHL because of it.

Bernie is in the same situation. He's not going to deliver a championship overnight. But he's not promising that either. The only thing he's promising is to fight for us as best as he can. He can't deliver everything. Nobody can. It's absurd to think otherwise. What he can do is pave the way. Create a movement, and keep it going.

And anyway, politics is a journey. Tying to turn it into a destination is a surefire means of failure.

Que es la más mierda?

Trying to decide what I find the most disappointing about many supposed Dem attitudes:

1. Obama has been about as close to perfect as humanly possible, as proven by his overall high approval ratings among Dems. Therefore, the only acceptable action for the next pres is to take his baton and continue at the same pace and same direction.

2. Bernie's not a serious candidate. This will especially be proven if he doesn't win the primary. The fact that he's been able to come out practically from nowhere (pretty sure most of the country has not been "Brunching with Bernie" over the years), get zero party support, and still break records for popular support will mean absolutely nothing ("a blip on the radar&quot if he doesn't manage to slay goliath.

3. Your guy is weak, while ours is a powerhouse. Even if he beats us, which of course is not possible, but just say that he were to, he's still a weakling and we're still a powerhouse. He should not be allowed to beat us, because only we can win in the finals. Therefore, he should abdicate the conference to us. Beating us and winning the conference means nothing, as we are still the better team, and only we can deliver the championship for our conference.

4. Bernie is out there, promising us the stars. How dare he not promise that one over there, just visible over the horizon?

5. We get to say whatever we want about Bernie, and until proven false it must be true. Any charges proven to be completely absurd are to have no bearing on charges that haven't been.

6. Any charges against us probably were and/or will be raised by a right-winger somewhere, therefore they are a RW talking point, which of course automatically renders them invalid.

7. She has decades of experience. A lot of great things happened, and some not so much. But whatever of that was bad, don't look at her, because she wasn't the president.

8. Experience = establishment. Bernie has been a politician for decades, therefore he is an establishment politician. Right, and Jello Biafra has been a professional musician for 40 years, making him considerably more establishment than, say, Taylor Swift.

Others? (And help yourself to fixing my wannabe hs espanol.)

Precedents for Presidents

Yes, the idea of a first woman president is a very good one.

But how about:

- First Jewish president

- First (in modern times?) non-party-mainstream president

- First (in modern times?) non-millionaire president

- First (in modern times?) non-corporate funded president

- First pro-cannabis president

Etc, etc. etc.

Want proof? Bernie's campaign!

Yes, the game is far from over. But all the suckers who say Bernie can't win or can't do something have already been proven wrong.

The success of his campaign itself is living, breathing proof.

Refusing SuperPACs. Returning donations from less than desirables. Getting essentially no party support. Absurdly little press coverage. Relying entirely on small donors.

Despite all that, he's now on a hyperbolic trajectory. Now in position to take IA, NH, and NV.

And you know what? I'm not surprised. Not even a little.

Yet, you told me that even to get close to this far could never happen.

Keep telling me what Bernie can't possibly do. To me, your opinion of "impossible" means jack.

Can Bernie "do anything"?

(Apologies if this has come up here before, as I have only been "sliming it" in GDP lately.)

My feeling is that the various disappointments and apparent concessions make it far too easy to forget how far we've come under Pres Obama. It's really not long ago at all that the knuckle draggers were winning big on a platform of God, guns, and gays.

Now we -almost- have equal marriage. Still not where it needs to be, of course, but at least the chickenshit "civil unions" is no longer on the table. And the need for the 1950's perfect church-going wasp family with 2.7 kids seems to be evaporating. Guns won't be going away any time soon. And there will be other social issues (abortion) kept available just for them to stick into the wheel spokes for some time.

I say it's a lot of progress. Does it mean we should be happy to settle for "more of the same"?

No.

I'm always trying to point out, life is not linear. You can have a David Bowie or Alan Rickman, who seem ready to give us another 50 years of their talents. Suddenly they're gone in a flash. Or you can have a Keith Richards, or for that matter, Dick Cheney, who seem to be hanging from a thread, yet keep going and going and going.

Music groups like the Beatles (really, most bands for that matter) can be nobodys for years, then suddenly shoot through the roof. Or a product like iPhone can suffer huge critical scorn among reviewers, but then be an instant success among consumers.

Our next president could have the exact same amount of positive impact as the current one. That's the idea behind "more of the same". It's quite unlikely though. What's more likely is that they'll have a lot more impact. Or maybe a lot less. It depends what side of the mountain the snowball ends up rolling down.

The point is, nobody can really know. To pretend otherwise is foolish. The best we can do is simply to try our best.

MoveOn email: "No one thought this was possible"