Martin Eden Mercury
VIP Member
- Nov 2, 2015
- 897
- 107
- 80
The candidacies of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O'Malley, form a Democratic party Triumvirate. It is republican in nature, but not very democratic. Whereas O'Malley has real executive experience of having been both a mayor and a governor, and Sanders has a real, but limited executive experience as a mayor, Hillary's executive experience as head of the State Department, along with her tenure as First Lady, as well US Senator, gives her a sort of power of imperium within the party. All other things being equal, the power to command, and the authority of each campaign, is not. Within the party, the power and authority of the other two campaigns combined, doesn't even come close to matching that of Clinton's.
The imperium power Clinton holds within the DNC primary, stands in stark contrast to a lesser power, a lesser auctoritas held by both O'Malley and Sanders. Since at least June of 2015, O'Malley is on record mentioning President Obama's Libya policy, and specifically the Benghazi issue. He is also on record denying the mentions have any inference to Hillary's contributions to the Obama administration's Libya policy during her stewardship at State, or to any culpability surrounding the Benghazi incident. Mr. O'Malley warily avoids the appearance of doing what he must do in order to have a serious shot at being the forerunner and eventual nominee. He skirts the edge of the rubicon and backs off, looking more like an Eastern Shore rube, than a former Baltimore Mayor, and Maryland Governor. I question if he has what it takes to make it through the primary season. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has opted for being the prudente candidate: prudent, sensible, and reasonable. This may have something to do with his not so progressive voting record. It is obvious Sanders fears attacking Hillary's strengths. His own credentials would come into focus and Sanders has never been in a contest like this one. Bernie speaks of Americans needing a movement, a movement he avoids stepping forward to lead. He's running for the Democratic party presidential nomination on issues related to a phantom movement. His campaign promises resemble an agenda more suited to a legislative agenda than an executive one. Prudente.
The party primary should resemble more of a contest between opposing candidates over who should lead the party into the general election as it's nominee, than a coronation or worse, an abdication of responsibilities by the loyal opposition. I believe it is true that a candidate's greatest strengths can also be their greatest weakness. If this is true of Hillary Clinton, better for the Democrats that it be exposed and taken on within the Democratic primary, than in the general election. If an attack from a Democratic challenger could damage Clinton enough to push her out of the lead in the horse race, or even out of the race altogether, now is the time to launch such an attack. But a true intra-party debate between these campaigns is hampered by the reluctance to criticize Hillary Clinton, by attacking her strengths. Unless one of the other two campaigns are willing to cross the rubicon, to let the die be cast, by attacking Hillary Clinton's strengths, the Democratic nomination is Hillary's to lose. In the long run I do not believe this would be a good thing for either the Democratic party, Hillary, or the nation.
The imperium power Clinton holds within the DNC primary, stands in stark contrast to a lesser power, a lesser auctoritas held by both O'Malley and Sanders. Since at least June of 2015, O'Malley is on record mentioning President Obama's Libya policy, and specifically the Benghazi issue. He is also on record denying the mentions have any inference to Hillary's contributions to the Obama administration's Libya policy during her stewardship at State, or to any culpability surrounding the Benghazi incident. Mr. O'Malley warily avoids the appearance of doing what he must do in order to have a serious shot at being the forerunner and eventual nominee. He skirts the edge of the rubicon and backs off, looking more like an Eastern Shore rube, than a former Baltimore Mayor, and Maryland Governor. I question if he has what it takes to make it through the primary season. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has opted for being the prudente candidate: prudent, sensible, and reasonable. This may have something to do with his not so progressive voting record. It is obvious Sanders fears attacking Hillary's strengths. His own credentials would come into focus and Sanders has never been in a contest like this one. Bernie speaks of Americans needing a movement, a movement he avoids stepping forward to lead. He's running for the Democratic party presidential nomination on issues related to a phantom movement. His campaign promises resemble an agenda more suited to a legislative agenda than an executive one. Prudente.
The party primary should resemble more of a contest between opposing candidates over who should lead the party into the general election as it's nominee, than a coronation or worse, an abdication of responsibilities by the loyal opposition. I believe it is true that a candidate's greatest strengths can also be their greatest weakness. If this is true of Hillary Clinton, better for the Democrats that it be exposed and taken on within the Democratic primary, than in the general election. If an attack from a Democratic challenger could damage Clinton enough to push her out of the lead in the horse race, or even out of the race altogether, now is the time to launch such an attack. But a true intra-party debate between these campaigns is hampered by the reluctance to criticize Hillary Clinton, by attacking her strengths. Unless one of the other two campaigns are willing to cross the rubicon, to let the die be cast, by attacking Hillary Clinton's strengths, the Democratic nomination is Hillary's to lose. In the long run I do not believe this would be a good thing for either the Democratic party, Hillary, or the nation.
Last edited:
