Tale of two videos (or is there really anything new to say?)

​         The Miami debate was largely a good one for Sanders and largely poor (or at least mediocre) for Clinton who was asked the tougher questions, got on the defensive, and made disingenuous, counter-productive attacks on Sanders. She’s been better. So has he. Her best response at the debate got no play from the media that I’ve seen: her direct, personal response to the Central American woman with five children. She sounded genuine (I think she was) and hit all the right notes, directly acknowledging the woman’s courage in speaking and her commitment and struggle in taking care of her five children on her own, and responding to the woman’s question about reunification in a personal way – sympathetic, related to a policy frame, but without over-promising. In contrast, to my ear, Sanders got the family relationships mixed up and sounded like a distant savior who would solve all such problems of all such people.
         The above was one of three things that stood out for me at the debate. The other two were videos: one a video that Clinton mentioned, the other a video that was actually shown and discussed. The video that was named is a supposed Koch brothers’ video that supports Sanders. Clinton raised it in a clumsy way that suggested that Sanders and the Koch brothers are in cahoots in some way. Of course he is not, and I am assuming she knows this. If this video does exist and I have seen nothing to suggest that it does not, the more significant question is why are the Koch brothers behind such a video? Well, of course, because at this point they want to suggest that Sanders is better than Clinton. In the long run, does anyone think that the Koch brothers care, that they would prefer Sanders to any of the Republican candidates? Of course not. Which brings me to the second video, the one of Sanders talking about Cuba and Nicaragua. Leave aside, for the moment, whether you support his ideas or not, and ask why the Koch brothers are not showing this video. Now, even if you agree with Sanders’ ideas, do you think that more than fifty percent of the U.S. electorate will buy those ideas?
         Holding the above question, consider a recent headline from The Nation which says that the way that Trump can defeat Clinton is by attacking her from the left and from the right. If Trump and Clinton do end up becoming the nominees, Trump may try that, but for the most part the left (even those who dislike Clinton) will close ranks against him. It is now that Clinton is being effectively hammered from the left and the right; The Nation’s headline is simply extrapolating from what is happening now. Meanwhile Sanders is being (largely) supported by the further left, supported or getting a pass from the center-left (many of them Clinton supporters like me, but who like or at least don’t dislike Sanders), and mostly ignored by the right. If Sanders becomes the nominee, we know that every rock in his life will be turned over. Trump’s phrase, “our communist friend,” will become more virulent, with interviews and speeches quoted and televised as evidence. The right will easily be mobilized against him. The left will unify behind him. Videos like the one on Cuba and Nicaragua will be used to sway the center – the big question is how large is that center? And will the Republican nominee re-fashion himself enough to appeal to that center?
         Both Clinton and Sanders are flawed candidates. Clinton is clumsy-to-disingenuous from time to time (not always, but sometimes with more unnerving frequency than other times); an incrementalist who is mostly quite comfortable with status quo institutions and laws, though she believes they could be better; and a foreign-policy hawk (who, if she is in office, I hope will be tempered by more sensible advisers and the legislature and public holding her accountable). She has these flaws, and, over the last twenty or so years of ambitious political efforts, has become an easy and favorite target, both through her own making and through the efforts of political adversaries. So every mistake she makes is hugely amplified, while Sanders’ mistakes seem minor in the light of his more inspiring aura of revolutionary change and genuineness. Sanders is selling a populist fantasy, one that provokes and inspires change in many wonderful ways (I do think his campaign has the potential to be a game-changer in U.S. politics!), but his political range is very limited, his legislative record is stunningly incrementalist (much stronger in amendments than bills; apparently only three of his bills were passed, two of which were for changing names of post offices), and his knowledge of foreign policy is limited and naïve (admittedly his foreign policy naiveté could lead to a freshness; I’m just not sure he has the strategic suppleness to leverage the freshness).
         Of course, I will support Sanders if he becomes the nominee, but I do worry that he would lose to the Republican candidate. Before the Miami debate, I had worried more that, as President, he would not be able to deliver on his promises. After the two videos, I am worried about his electability.
 
An aside: I would love to see a Clinton-Warren ticket, and I was rather appalled at the way Sanders’ supporters excoriated Warren for not endorsing him before the Massachusetts primary. I’m not sure Clinton is risk-taking enough to do it, and I’m not sure Warren would want to do it, but if they could work together, they could push U.S. policy-making into very interesting new territory.