Out with the old, in with the new - a split opinion

[question everything]

Well, not about the new year, but I am having a split opinion about our leaders in Washington.

First, keep the "old" is Pelosi, of course, and i think that this issue has been resolved. She is the best speaker we've ever had; she knows the ways of Washington; she is behind the passage of the ACA and behind the Blue Wave last month, when she guided the candidates to concentrate on health care issue and not on anti-Trump, even though polls showed that many voted D as an anti-Trump measure.

And... yes, she can work with Trump if the creepy Miller is out of the picture. Let's face it: House passes laws, but eventually Trump will have to sign them. And remember when last year he had a good meeting with "Chuck and Nancy?" There is nothing wrong with cultivating these relationship. Within two years we will have to show the voters that we can govern, we can pass laws that improve the lives of everyone. We are not a one time protest vote but a vote for the future. As she chose in 2007, going after a sitting president is not what the House should do.

And, of course, it is not as if there is someone better waiting.

And now the other opinion - presidential candidates.

As a start - we don't have someone qualified sitting there, like Pelosi.

I think that it is time to thank all the 70 something former and wannabe candidates: Biden, Hillary, Kerry, Warren.

They have done their service and can still help future candidates. Warren is an important asset in the Senate.

But I don't think that any of them can communicate with the younger generations.

I have posted here several times that I was envious of the 2016 Republican Clown Car, with so many candidates in their 40s and 50s.

But now we have our own. I am grateful to Bill Maher for introducing Beto O'Rourke and Erik Swalwell to national audience. I am really impressed by both of them, as well as by Joe Kennedy III after his countering the State of the Union. What was nice about Beto was that he was not talking Trump, or impeachment. He was talking health care, employment, retirement.

Yes, I know. all white men, but I will not vote for an "identity" candidate just for his or her identity.

Many are looking at Amy Klobuchar. She is competent, intelligent, knows the issues... just like our last candidate. Voters do not seek competent and intelligent, they want to be excited. The reality is that after Obama, Trump and Sanders we will expect a presidential candidate to be able to excite the audience and I don't think Klobuchar can do this.

Yes, about Sanders. In the 80s, a visitor from abroad asked me: you are a nation of more than 300 million people. Reagan is the best that you can do?

We, Democrats, have many exciting, capable, knowledgeable members. Sanders is not a Democrat, has never been a Democrat, actively campaigned against Democrats including withing for someone to primary challenge Obama in 2012. Are we incapable of finding a candidate among our own?

Someone posted here that if one does not support Sanders then they should not be on this site. I would say the opposite.

Either way, time to send Sanders, and the other elder leaders to find something meaningful to them.

[question everything]

1. I am glad that Beto O'Rourke does not want outside "help"

That he wants to run on his own, a Texan campaign.

I think that he is the exact opposite of Sanders.

[ismnotwasm]

2. The default identity is a white and usually male

The very idea that anybody else needs an identity vs White and male—as it is an “invisible” standard is included in ethnic studies everywhere.

Personally I want a whole lot of diversity on the presidential ticket and I think we can find it, the right combo.

[question everything]

3. Yes, this will be nice to have a diversity

but if we select someone for the sake of diversity, while passing on a great candidate who happens to be white male, we will lose. Voters will wonder how reliable are we.

And.. as an aside - Sanders is a white man.