Let me start by saying that Demo debate was different as in that it had less people on stage than the number of cousins in my Hispanic family for the first time, that’s saying something. Most debates looked like a family gathering minus the Spanish and sangria, alright, a small family gathering minus the Spanish and the sangria and either salsa, merengue, bachata or cumbia music in the background. And of course in the debates only one person spoke at a time while, which is also a little different.
All candidates are very deserving of being on that stage and would make great leaders, in my opinion, but like in all gathering either debates or fiestas, there is always a couple of standouts. In the fiestas it could be a good thing or a bad thing, my ex-wife who could dance salsa and mesmerize you or the guy that left most of his sangria on his shirt. In these debates it’s the person that commands the stage with a mix of humor, logic and poise that leaves you wondering why this person isn’t the logical choice for President. Unlike other times when I went into a more in depth blog about these candidates on the topics, I’m going to point out some factors that impressed me and underwhelmed about these candidates. In no particular order, actually, the order you see in the picture above, I’m going to address them.
Con: Joe might rely a little too much on his predecessor. He needs to distinguish himself or set himself apart even if he has the same mindset. Small gaffes aren’t hurting him now but in the sure to be heated debates against Trump, Trump will put pressure on him and he has to be able to maintain clarity and be quick witted, which he did show in this debate. His experience, being in Washington too long can sometimes desensitize you. No military experience.
Pro: Joe has conviction and if anyone on that stage can work with both parties, it’s him. He would be the most likely candidate to get the most bipartisan support from the congress and senate. This means that things might actually get done. His experience, being in Washington that long, he made some friends and learned a few tricks. Also, I feel that Joe would actually punch you in the nose, you noticed that I put that on the pro list. He has a backbone, like Teddy, he gives you the feeling of the kind word while carrying a big stick analogy.
Con: Pete, being as young as he is, can’t really point to too much national experience. People might worry that he will have problems dealing with the Senate or if the Senate will try and bully him because he is so young, similar to what they did with Obama.
Pro: Pete is poised. He came under fire and didn’t blink, didn’t seemed fazed, never lost his swagger, returned fire and stood his ground. Pete is also measured, he doesn’t put plans forward that he believes won’t have a shot of making it through legislature. He is ambitious but not overly ambitious, which would be a con. Pete is progressive, he has bright analytical ideas that only come with people his age and intellect. He isn’t relying on what worked twenty years ago, he is relying what would work now and in the future. Military experience, who else put their lives on the line, thank me all you want, and I appreciate your thanks, but remind people that you put more skin in the game then anyone else there, you actually put your skin on the line for what you believe. Pete is electable and he listens to the science.
The one thing I would say to Pete, we are all on a first name basis in this blarticle (a combo of blog and article or just a blah article, your decision) is next time someone questions you about your experience or touts their experience in Washington, you might want to take that opportunity to ask them if they are happy where Washington is now and if they aren’t then obviously the people there aren’t the solution and if they are then obviously they would like four more years of what they have now. Let them make that decision and then remind them that people, ordinary people, think that Washington is the problem and that they have been there for a while and call it a home away from home while your intention is to be a temporary fixture to clean things up and to get the hell out of there. I think it was a missed opportunity when Sen. Klobuchar challenged you on your experience, my answer would have been that or, noting where Washington is today with these debacles, it might have been I have no experience fucking sh*t up, just fixing stuff, maybe not in such salty language, but you get the gist. Then I would have added the part about wanting to be a temporary fixture. That was my first thought when I heard the criticism as an answer that would have gone to the heart of people touting there Washington experience, then I would have gotten the sangria from the bottom of my podium and sang “El dia de suerte”,…… maybe don’t do that.
Con: Her voice is a little shaky, she seems like she wants to yell but is holding back. No military experience.
Pro: Amy has a bunch of pros. She is a fireplug. She is funny. She has no awkward compunctions about getting in your face and telling you exactly how she feels, even though I feel she has actually been holding back a little which, if she lets those feelings out, might turn into a con. Amy points out that she has not lost an election to date. Amy is strong willed and seems like a person that gets sh*t done. Of all the women candidates left, she is the most electable and has the best chance to get elected.
If the stories are true about her throwing stuff at her employees, I was hoping that she would throw a clipboard at one of the moderators, I really don’t know that if that would hurt or not, it depends on what preceded it. One of my favorite teacher used throw chalk or erasers at students that used to fall asleep and he was a great teacher. Maybe her staff was falling asleep, and if so, that’s what you get, toma juevon, despierta!! That means please wake up. Sangria anyone??? Amy is only 59, 60 if and when elected. Young enough to go those 8 years and old enough where those clipboards just won’t have that uumph when they hit you, that they would’t hurt that much.
Con: Might sound ageist but, we all know where I am going with this, his age. No military experience.
Pro: Bernie is the person that started the revolution, say what you will, most of the other candidates except for Joe, are feeding off of the Bernie blue print. His experience is only a plus, unlike Joe, because he seemed to have the wherewithal to get it right the first time around 99 percent of the time. He is the father of this movement and Bernie stays the course. Bernie is also fair minded, he would take both aspects of the argument and criticize both sides equally as needed. Bernie is tough and he is fair, he is this political arenas Mills Lane.
I’m going to pass on Tom because I just don’t know enough about him, he was a little late to the game, or as we like to say “los que llegan tarde no toman sangria”, (really does not translate to this situation) but that is a personal decision, but he says all the right things and seems like the genuine article. It’s actually los que llegan tarde quedan sin sillas which means those who arrive late are without seats, also maybe, not the best analogy, since he was on stage.
Con: Like Bernie, her age. No military experience. Doesn’t seem to have that punch you in the nose we’re going to war if needed mentality, meaning that against her opponent, in a debate that would undoubtedly turn nasty, I can see her get a little rattled, and unfortunately, that Pocahontas remark is going to come up.
Pros: Extremely smart. A excellent debater. Steady as a rock in her ideologies. Took 100,000 selfies. Took the Bank industry to task in a show of force Patton would have been proud of. Selfless and devoted to the country. Wants to do the right thing, will do the right thing.
Con: Experience in Government. No military experience. Might hesitate to go take bold action against a foreign government, meaning that he might be too nice.
Pros: Experience in Government. Funny. Probably the most analytical and out of the box thinker of all the candidates. Relatable. Should be the nominee in a perfect world but we live in this one. Andrew is a remarkable talent that seemed to take this challenge on a dare but damn it if he isn’t what might exactly be needed. Andrew has moxie, (stole it from Bernie), and courage to say things that at first people seem to laugh at but then, after the sangria hangover wears off, you say, he is exactly right. But like being on a sangria hangover or stupor, most of us won’t realize it until it’s too late. President Yang, has a good ring to it.
Andrew is also the candidate that will, if not nominated, say “I told you so”, because he is right, it’s that simple, and if you don’t heed his advice, you will probably fail. Andrew is right about why the Demo’s lost in 2016, why this country will flounder if we don’t start becoming the leaders in future technology and why the economy will falter if we don’t take steps to level paying wages and force these big tech companies that utilize robots to pay a stipend or force them to hire a person for every robotic arm, even if it’s just to sit there and look at this robot do everything.