(no subject)

[lotesse]

So - I badly want to be more enchanted by Bernie Sanders than I am. And I'm not sure how legitimate "enchantment" even is, politically speaking, but noticing affective responses is kind of what I do.

I watched the Maddow-moderated Presidential Candidates' Forum tonight kind of backwards, Clinton first and then O'Malley and Sanders. And mainly I was enchanted by Rachel, obvs, I was watching it for her, she's my Jon Stewart replacement and I coo over her cleverness in similar ways. But I also finished the Clinton segment feeling just fucking pumped. Clinton and Maddow worked together beautifully in managing the levels of the interview - the intensity of HRC talking about her meeting with Sybrina Fullton and other bereaved Black mothers (can i say how much I appreciated it that she avoided another repetition of the "black lives matter" slogan?) mellowing into a genuinely sweet reflection on a wedding-day photo. Had me choking up and then grinning like a loon.

And yes, O'Malley is a centrist dope who can't give a straight answer, nothing new there - loved the "smh" reaction shots from the crowd - but golly I also got bored and tired during the Bernie Sanders segment. I don't like the way his points are always the same. I feel like he's always lecturing, not communicating. He reminds me of my father, both positively and negatively. I love my father, but sometimes I really dislike having to work with him. And, like, you know Sanders fucking loves Rachel Maddow (did he maybe call her "kid" at the beginning of the silly segment? "i could never hate you kid"? dying here), but I got a stronger sense of conversation/connection between her and Clinton. I rewatched that segment; I left the tab open but wandered off to tumblr while Sanders spoke.

I mean, like I said this is all analysis of affect and theatre, not policy. But politics is both. I don't feel that I can trust HRC morally; death penalty/Iraq/welfare reform/didn't fucking protect Monica/banks. But damn if she's not the one who impresses me beyond my expectations when I see her work. She's the one who seems like she's already doing the job, not just campaigning for it.

Comments

[anghraine]

Same. I mean, in terms of policy the differences between Hillary and Bernie are vastly overstated anyway, but she just seems so-- she bleeds competence.

I like Bernie and I respect his principles, but I'm a lot more interested in what a president does than who they are as a person. (Which is part of the reason I find his fanbase annoying--it seems so focused on how great he is personally, and much less how he would function in reality, within the political sphere that exists today.)

[lotesse]

Yep. I mean, really what I'd like is for primary season to develop a concrete platform, so that in voting for a President you're voting for a person in charge of the execution of a specific-ish "plan." I want Hillary Clinton in charge of the doing the thing, but I want to pick the thing we're doing.

[anghraine]

I think you're more hopeful than me! I mostly want someone who will mitigate GOP damage as much as possible, particularly considering Congress. But I might care more if Hillary and Bernie differed more substantially, idk.

She gets tainted with Bill's centrism a lot, I think, even though the rating from her own record is identical to Elizabeth Warren's and only slightly right of Bernie himself. So in terms of Hillary vs Bernie, the media theatre is doing their damndest to magnify what are ultimately fairly minor differences of opinion. Neither of them will be able to accomplish what they or we would like, in any case--the real question for me is what they'll be able to accomplish at all. They can't pick all the battles, or most of them. Which ones are they going to choose? What concessions are they going to make?

[lotesse]

See, and on those grounds I'd like to hire Hillary Clinton please! I think she's most likely to be able to get things done, though I don't trust her as much to pick the right thing to do.

It felt to me like she and Maddow were doing pedagogical work together, using their "discussion" to guide listeners through a developed line of thought. It's ... something, to get that out of a campaign event, and I don't think Sanders did get it.

[msilverstar]

I think Sanders is giving Clinton good cover from the left, which makes her look as moderate as she really is. They both have more executive experience than most of the Repubs.

[auroramama]

Yes to this. We need actual progressivism back as legitimate discourse. I like Sanders, and I'll probably vote for him in the primaries, but mostly for that reason: I want Democrats to have some influence from something more left-wing than giant blobs of money.

I honestly don't know how much of the agenda that's important to me is doable. Getting rid of citizenship for corporations and money as speech, public funding for election campaigns... can we change the minds of people who have billions of dollars in advertising aimed at them?

[lotesse]

It does seem like the primary's succeeding in moving the Dems leftward as a party. I'm pretty pleased with how little "moderate" mealymouthing we've had from the leading Dem candidates, Martin O'Malley notwithstanding.