ELECTABLE AND COURAGEOUS: BERNIE SANDERS FOR PRESIDENT.

 Bernie Sanders represents more individual donors than 

any other candidate. (Photo: Rebecca Cook / Reuters)

You go about your day and you encounter some Democrats who insist, “I’m for Biden, because he’s electable,” but when you convince these good souls to cut that out, to forget the “electable routine” for just one minute, and instead, credit the candidate closest to their value set, these good souls will invariably say—about nine times out of ten—Bernie Sanders. We’ll get to Bernie’s electability in a minute. Hold the line, please.

I don’t happen to dislike Joe Biden as vehemently as some hardcore liberals do. On paper, he presents remarkable credentials: Vice President for eight years, Senator forever, working class advocate, et cetera. He likes Amtrak. I like the train, too. Apparently, Trump fears Biden the most, or so we’d imagine, owing to the entire impeachment thing—maybe you’ve heard of this?— that’s been predictably stubbed-out by Senate Republicans.

Yet Biden can be maddeningly error-prone. He seems to be running—as Hillary Clinton twice did—because he wants to be president, rather than because he can communicate a compelling vision for his presidency. In any event, the mainstream media has been searching for a younger, less baffling version of “Sleepy Joe.” They have tried to champion Pete Buttigieg and Amy “Comb-uchar” but it’s hard to know what either of those two candidates really stands for, aside from the DNC talking points.

Noting that the Democratic electorate is of two minds—OMFG if the party should actually nominate a genuine liberal—the mainstream media has also been searching for an alternative to Bernie Sanders: left, but not left-wing. Some outlets have championed Elizabeth Warren. Maybe it’s just me, but every time I look at footage of Warren, I feel as if I’m about to get a C+ on my term paper. It perpetually appears like she’s detecting a sour odor, which does conjure the teaching corps in higher education (her former metier.) I know, I know, she has a plan for that sour odor.

Bernie’s in his upper seventies. He’s suffered a well-publicized heart attack. He represents a state that will likely vote for the Democrat no matter who leads the ticket. Some people call him “socialist” and / or “communist.” All of these fabulous highlights might have disqualified him during another election cycle, but we here at Blood And Gutstein note that Bernie’s the only Democratic candidate who’s been broadening the tent, via the trademark small donations, since 2016. In particular, young people hoot & holler for him. And if you can say one thing about Donald Trump’s ascendancy, it’s canceled any conventional wisdom about who might run and who can win. 

     AOC’s endorsement underscores the sentiments 

of young voters. (Photo: J Pat Carter / Getty)

It’s also clear to us that Bernie isn’t just spinning yarns because they might “play well” among voters. He’s been advocating many of the same policies now for decades, and his pledge to drive-out big money from American politics is the single most identifiable policy among all candidates for the Democratic nomination. His vision is clear and courageous. We also admire his zeal in campaigning with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is one of the most dynamic politicians in the world.

The Republican presidential nominees often succeed in positioning themselves as “tough guys” (even as many of the same “tough guys” deftly evaded military duty when called upon to serve) and toughness does resonate among voters in November. Should Bernie win the Democratic nomination, he’ll have to project toughness, not only in standing up to the forthcoming negative barrages from the right, but in leading during an era of unprecedented global challenges. Before that, however, it’s voters like you and me who must demonstrate toughness, by making the correct choice—Bernie—in 2020.

THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT LOOK MIGHTY WEAK: COMPLAINT.

It’s 2001. The jazz pianist Tommy Flanagan has passed away. A radio station is interviewing a friend of his. He tells a story. In the story, it’s NYC 1950s or 1960s.

      “We was all playing gigs,” he says. “All the piano players.

      “At clubs around town, and when we was done, we’d go to the after-hours club.

      “This is where the REAL music would happen.

      “There was twenty or thirty of us.

      “Each guy got his turn at the piano.

      “This kid went up there, young kid, his hands was like birds on the piano keys.

      “He played boogie woogie, stride, modern, barrelhouse, avant GARDE.

      “Man, the place was going wild, everybody hollerin’, jumpin’, clappin’ they hands.

      “Then it was Tommy’s turn.

      “Tommy went up there.

      “He looked out at the audience, all severely you see:

      “He played the darkest, deepest key on that piano.

      “Everybody got damn quiet damn quickly.

      “Man, he wiped that cat out with ONE NOTE.”

Where is the Tommy Flanagan of today’s Democratic presidential candidates? Where is the Democratic challenger for the presidency who can wipe that cat out with one note? By “cat” we mean Trump, and by “cat” we mean the twenty or thirty hopefuls who are gathered at the “after hours club” also known as the Democratic National Committee, tossing their fedoras into the ring. Collectively, they are same-y, corporate, ageing, visionless, limpid, smarmy, air-brushed, elitist, tight-assed, and doomed. If your favorite isn’t exactly every one of those, then she or he is some of those. They open their mouths and “Trumpelstiltskin” comes out. We get it. Trump is a Russian asset. He has fornicated with Triple X stars, he has eaten a shocking amount of McDonalds, he has produced single-year tax returns that exceed the career published output of Joyce Carol Oates. Hasn’t this horror story—a cinema known as Trump v. Hillarious—played out before our very eyes, with the “basket of deplorables” triumphing in the Electoral College? Oh, this gang is very Photo Genie. They can run an impressive mile. (They have massive quadriceps.) The best of them will turn eighty in office, should he survive the process. (Should he achieve election.) Whereas the most enviable politician in the country—I speak of Alexandria—is seven years too young to establish an exploratory committee. 

The great Tommy Flanagan at the piano.

We turn to our panel of experts, The Machine, Sausages, and Fluffy, which is advising this blog during Complaint Week 2019.

         “Democratic,” insists Fluffy, “not ‘Democrat.’ Remember that.”

         “Everybody is so outraged about every little thing,” writes Sausages, “that they don’t exhibit proper outrage when something truly outrageous happens.”

         “We live in a country,” writes The Machine, “where elections are non-stop.”

Indeed. The Democratic group struggles to gain traction versus Trump. Outrageousness doesn’t lift any eyebrows. And the election to challenge Trump has been going on since December 2016, blah de bloo, blah de bloo. We need a candidate who can wipe this—entire scourge—out of the public domain—forever. With one note. How about Likability + Vision? Maybe that’s two notes, or maybe this clean candidate will be (shockingly? tragically?) a Republican? Complaint!

blood and gutstein complaint week 2019: no solutions—just gripes

monday: democrats

tuesday: education

wednesday: poetry

thursday: beer

friday: sports

ADVENTURES IN PERSONAL PURITY SCORE.

Not even Ivory Soap is pure.

I was eating lunch with a couple friends recently when the topic of coffee drinks came up, and one person said, "Well, I went to Starbucks the other day -- I don't usually go there, but someone gave me a gift card, you see," and doo da dippity, she went on to describe a brewed beverage, but along the way, attempted to address what I'll call her "Personal Purity Score" by disavowing any particular affection for Starbucks, a going concern that is also synonymous with "big impersonal national chain that has helped kick the little guy (who must've had character) to the curb." She said, in effect, that someone else created the circumstances under which she actually patronized the joint, and as such, attempted to safeguard our opinion of her. Some people will stick up for Starbucks, noting that the coffee's not bad, and the company isn't either, and besides, there are worse examples of corporate misbehavior in this world (see: Walmart, BP, Haliburton, etc.) This raises a question that many of us consider -- subconsciously, perhaps -- every day: How pure is our behavior as consumers, for starters, but also in other arenas as well: In relationships, with political choices, as regards to the arts (bands, literature, etc.) we prefer, and with respect to the very food we eat, the very drink we imbibe? Would one increase his Personal Purity Score by averring his preference for working-class suds like Budweiser, as opposed to some pricey, fruity Belgian import? Would one increase his PPS by listening to jazz on vinyl as opposed to compact disc or MP3? You may not like the Tea Party movement, but the central plank in its platform -- nay, its only plank -- concerns the various facets of fiscal stewardship, making the movement, arguably, more understandable or accessible, for example, than the Democrats; thus, the Tea Party crowd, in its own way, may be more pure, since it may be more obvious (regardless of political bend) in its focus, as opposed to the bloated, muddled, flip-floppy major parties. Or take the social construct of marriages, half of which in this country seem to fail. Groom and bride make a bunch of promises that may otherwise contradict the essential character of the human animal whereas if they had never married, they may never have contradicted themselves in the first place. What is your carbon footprint? Is vegetarianism better for the world than being a carnivore? Do you -- really -- recycle? Ah, the list could go on and on. Raising another question: Can Personal Purity be attained? Is anyone pure? And if you or I cannot attain a high PPS, i.e., we may be beholden to circumstances that we cannot control, then what's the use of trying? Many years ago, I came across some kind of PETA catalogue and I swear they were advertising a really little ladder that one would install in his bathroom -- to help -- a spider -- climb out -- of the -- bathtub. If you don't own this ladder, and are not helping a spider to escape from your tub, then is your PPS slipping? After all, the average American will swallow, in her sleep, a certain number of aimless, wandering spiders every year, and if she isn't installing a little ladder in her mouth, to help the critters survive, is she taking the purest steps she could take?  A chunk of this is relative to the individual, obviously, but nevertheless, if you don't condemn conservative politics, if you gab on a cell phone as opposed to a land line, if you masquerade as an avant garde poet and/or a "Marxist", if you purchase products from Pfizer, if you waste toilet paper on casual spills, if you are "fashionable" -- Ladies and Gents -- the Big Question looms: Are You Pure? (Do you lose PPS for declaring your relative purity?) You may have a big heart, but when the time comes to meet your Maker, he or she may point out that you didn't exactly stick to the tenets of your faith. Or is religious devotion versus, say, cultural devotion, an impurity? Your conclusion may be that, like Ivory Soap, 100 percent purity cannot be attained, but we should all be striving, nevertheless. What's a good threshhold, then:  75 percent? 60 percent? 45 percent or less? I may be wrong, but the bar seems rather low, these days. Are there certain basic purities that we should all be demonstrating in our daily lives? Have we forgotten? Have we lost our way? Surely, in the grand scheme of Our Modern World, and the way we suffer Our Various Indignities, it hardly costs my friend very much PPS to have taken her gift card to Starbucks, am I right? I ask you.