Top 10 Truths Cable News (and Most Presidential Candidates) Won't Tell you about Medicare for All

Full disclosure: A long time ago I campaigned for Medicare for All single payer health care representing Public Citizen's Congress Watch, Physicians for a National Health Program, Neighbor to Neighbor and the California Nurses Association first as a legislative advocate before Congress and then before the California legislature.  I worked for a time as counsel to the California Assembly Health Committee.  I later worked for SEIU California helping to pass the laws to implement Obamacare in California.

With the merits of Medicare for All being debated by the presidential candidates and selectively reported on by cable news, we've got to keep ourselves informed.  Here are the Top 10 Truths about Medicare for All that I think that the presidential candidates and cable news outlets (all flavors) are unlikely to report:

1. Medicare is government provided insurance not government run health care.  The UK has the British Health System where all the hospitals are owned by the government and all the health professionals are employed by the government.  It works well.  When it was taken up in Canada decades ago, the conservative party there pushed for a compromise: government provided insurance rather than government provided health care.  No one is suggesting otherwise in the US (although it would be interesting to see if Bernie pushed for the UK system whether the other Democrats would move to government insurance as a compromise lol).
2. Almost nobody is attached to their insurance except insurance providers.  Democratic candidates for president please stop.  Your credibility is badly strained.  We want to go to the doctors and hospitals we want.  We do NOT really care who pays for it. 
3. Healthcare has been one of the single fastest growing sectors of the US economy for decades--there is a lot at stake for corporate contributors and cable news owners.  Candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders says this aloud but most other candidates skirt the issue.  Everywhere at the top of the US economy people are getting rich off overcharging ordinary people for prescription drugs and procedures through their insurance.  Therefore to go after the private health insurance industry it to alienate HUGE campaign contributors and corporate sponsors of cable news in the US economy.  It takes more political courage than most news anchors or candidates for president are willing to display (if they want to stay on air or in office).
4. Except for expanding Medicaid for the poorest, Obamacare did nothing to put the brakes on costs.  In a private system that is designed to enrich Big Pharma and Big Insurance, NOTHING puts limits on costs.  And if it does, those savings are NEVER passed back to us.  Obama couldn't muster the political will to change that in Obamacare.
5. Many Democratic presidential candidates and cable news anchors are likely getting talking points and contributions from the health insurance industry.  If a candidate is talking about how much people want to keep their private insurance or how the only sane choice is to create a "public option," they are likely getting their talking points directly or indirectly from the health insurance industry which wants to preserve its runaway profits at our expense.
6. Kaiser Permanente probably wrote the talking points that the Dems are using.  Kaiser Permanente historically is the absolute linchpin nationwide for stopping Medicare for All. This merits another post but here's why: first THEY are an integrated system so among insurers they can credibly claim that if you eliminate their private insurance, you interfere with people's right to choose their doctor or hospital.  Some people DO love Kaiser although under Obamacare most people who choose Kaiser choose it purely on cost and then can't afford the high copays and deductibles to see a doctor when they're really sick.  Kaiser uses its control of its doctors groups to dictate to the American Medical Association and it use its "partnership" with their some of their health care unions (with the exception of the California Nurses Association) to get political cover with Democrats.  Healthcare workers and doctors are very effective messengers to talk to Democrats.  They then march forth en masse with KP's talking points in hand to destroy time and again what would most benefit doctors and healthcare workers: Medicare for All.
7. Access to healthcare today is rationed by how much money you have and the savings go to private shareholders in the form of profit not to your care.  
8. Access to healthcare under a government insurance like Medicare would be rationed by how much the system can afford and the savings could go back into that system to pay for necessary care.
9. Almost everyone in the US already pays a huge "tax" for health care in the form of premiums, deductibles, co-pays.  By collecting that money through taxes, the working class and middle class could pay much less for health care and, depending on the details, have fewer or no obstacles to presenting themselves for care.  The rich could pay their fair share.  And the cost to businesses could also be progressive with small businesses paying a much smaller cost and everyone on a level playing field.  
10. All of US economy EXCEPT health insurance would largely benefit from Medicare for All.  Historically the Chamber of Commerce opposes all government medical insurance even though its members often muse to the contrary.   A former CEO of General Motors once famously quipped, comparing the cost of producing cars in the US to that of producing its cars in Canada (which has universal health insurance), "There's more healthcare in GM's US cars than there is steel."  The reason they oppose government insurance is ideological.  Ironically they are all open to government bailouts or subsidies directly to big business.  The other reason is that health insurance is part of the financial industry so it invests its assets in other parts of the economy and there are interlocking boards of directors.

Please pass this post around to people.  The health insurance industry is working overtime now to counteract the political surge for Medicare for All.  Sadly they've already brought to heel California Governor Gavin Newsom (who campaigned on single payer healthcare and is now backing off it once in office).  See is my post on Gavin Newsom's appointees

Attn Fellow Sanders Supporters and Other Loving Beings: Please Simmer Down & Stop it with the Warren Bashing

Senator Elizabeth Warren

Simmer down, please.  Remember, folks, the presidential primary is next year.  Nobody knows anything yet.  At this point in 2007, Barack Obama was considered someone who didn't have a chance to be president.  So, can we all just generally simmer down and pay attention, please?  There's a lot more to learn.  Tonight and tomorrow are the very first nationally televised presidential primary debates.  Elizabeth Warren will debate Corey Booker, Jay Inslee and Beto O'Rourke tonight on MSNBC 6pmPT.  Tomorrow night Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris and Marianne Williamson same time and station.

Just stop it.  via GIPHY

Lately, I've been disappointed and struck by the vitriol and passion with which Bernie Sanders supporters have been attacking Elizabeth Warren.  Comparing her to Hillary Clinton (which, among progressives, is tantamount to comparing her to Bin Laden), calling her a corporatist, reminding people she was once a member of the Republican party, you name it.  Please, just stop it.

I know it is scary to think of Sanders and Warren splitting the progressive vote thereby allowing the highly problematic Joe Biden to surge forward, but let's keep our eyes on the prize here, people.  Let's trust (but verify) the process.  Let's continue to focus on our candidates' strengths and point out weaknesses.  But let us not MSU (Make Shit Up).  Let's not waste energy demonizing anyone (even he who must not be named--remember he built his entire empire on being named and it's all he cares about good or bad).  If we are going to choose (elect) a world that works for everyone, we need to work together to do it.

I'm not asking you to stop it because we all are going to have to support the Democrat in 2020 no matter who they end up being so we need to not harden our position (but we will have to if we want to defeat this incumbent regime).

I'm not asking you to stop it because I support Elizabeth Warren for president (I would happily vote for her for president but so far I am still for Bernie Sanders-- see Top 5 Reasons Social Democracy maybe THE winning message in 2020; Comparison of the 2020 Candidates on Power of the Word; Bernie Sanders and the Power of the Word).

Top 5 reasons I am asking you to stop it:

1.  Elizabeth Warren is no Hillary Clinton.  Indeed, one could even make a case that Warren is the "Anti-Hillary."  Yes she campaigned for Hillary Clinton in the general election (so did Sanders) and yes she failed to endorse Sanders in 2016 (extremely regrettable).  But long before she was running for president, Elizabeth Warren was working hard to stop Joe Biden, Bill Clinton and later Hillary Clinton from hurting working families and enriching Wall Street.  Read New York Times Magazine on Elizabeth Warren 6-17-2019 to learn more about her history on this--amazing.

2.  Wall Street has made it clear, they want anyone but Warren or Sanders.  Everywhere it is clear, Wall Street is united to see that neither Warren nor Sanders become the nominee.  Why? they know that both Warren and Sanders are committed to end unfettered greed, restore the Glass-Steagall Act that protects consumers from the wild speculative investment and swings in the market that it brings, and other government reforms that make sure that government serves the interests of working people. 

3.  While Warren professes to be "capitalist to [her] bones" she also clearly believes STRONGLY in the power of government to benefit working families.  Sanders is a self-professed socialist in the model of FDR and Warren is a self-professed capitalist in the model of TR yet BOTH are progressive Roosevelt populists who are working for and in the common interest in different ways.

4.  Elizabeth Warren has a plan for that.  Much mocked, Elizabeth Warren's plans are detailed, well thought out and useful.  In creating and campaigning for those very important populist reforms in the model of Teddy Roosevelt, she helps educate the populace on the importance of public policy;  she provides whoever the next president and Congress are with a ready to go agenda.

5.  President Sanders will need Elizabeth Warren to win and to succeed.  As my other articles set forth (see links above) so far I think Bernie Sanders has the best combination of ability to win the nomination and the presidency with the proven progressive track record to be sure that he will fight for a world that works for everyone.  If progressive support consolidates around Warren, I would vote for her in the primary and campaign like hell for her in the general election.  I would love for her to be president, but I don't feel she has what it takes to win.  And no, I'm not talking about a Y chromosome, I'm talking about control and command of her word, and, per the article in the NYTimes, the discipline to not fall for the incumbent's provocations.

That having been said, Sanders will need a lot of help to win and to govern effectively.  Warren will be a key piece both on the campaign trail and in office.  In addition to president, she would make a fabulous secretary of treasury, chief of staff, or vice president.  

Top 5 Reasons Democratic Socialism may be a Winning Message in the 2020 Presidential Campaign

[Note--I drafted the bulk of this piece on June 6, 2019 but didn't publish it.  On June 12th, 2019 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders made virtually every point in here in his groundbreaking beautiful speech at George Washington University.  Listen to that speech regardless.  It is now an important part of American History.] 


There is a lot of mythology out there about how Democrats can't win the presidency in 2020 with a Democratic socialism (often mislabled "Socialist" and we'll talk about that too) message.  I maintain that democratic socialism is a winning message, and one that is better embraced than run away from.

1.  They will call Democrats "socialists" regardless.  No matter how "business friendly" or compromising the positions are of the candidates Democrats put forward, Republicans always always always label whatever it is "socialism."  Obamacare, which was and is a market-based approach to health coverage, was labeled "socialism." Clinton care in the early 90's which was even more market-based because it did NOT contain expansion of Medicaid was labeled "socialism."  Even raising the minimum wage is labeled "socialism" when convenient. [In his speech, Bernie also reaches back to FDR, Harry Truman and LBJ's most popular policies being labeled socialist]  Every smart criminal trial lawyer knows that if your client has a potentially weak point, its better to "bring it out on a direct" instead of cross-examination.  In other words, don't let your opponent define you.  Every other Democrat Bill Clinton on has run from the label and let their opponents define them.  Bernie Sanders takes it head on and says, let's see, what's wrong with spending our hard-earned tax dollars on programs that benefit all Americans so that we can all have a better life?  

2.  Socialist programs are largely popular and sustainable.  There's a reason that FDR, our most social Democratic president, was elected 4 times and Democrats need to remember it.  In the New Deal and subsequent legislation, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created social programs (coupled with wartime economy yes) that lifted us out of the Great Depression and put us on a strong economic footing.  During these times Social Security Administration, Unemployment Insurance, Federal Deposit Insurance and agricultural subsidies programs, all of which are somewhat in place today, and largely popular were created.  

The reason the "no middle ground" is so important (but a terrible battle cry, it needs to be recast as "We include everyone" or "leave no one out" or "A world that works for everyone" not as if people who want Medicare for All or the Green New Deal are intractable) is that when social programs include everyone they are popular.  Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Medicare (created under President Lyndon B Johnson in 1965) which serve all people when they turn a certain age have remained immensely popular from the time of their inception.  Other programs which are income-based including Medicaid--health care for the poor-and other programs from LBJ's War on Poverty:  HeadStart, Food Stamps, VISTA, and Legal Services tend to be controversial and have been under attack from, and under erosion, for decades.  The safety net is vital and needs to be expanded, but the legacy of Ronald Reagan bled into a long line of Democrats like the Clintons who participate in demonizing and penalizing the alarming vast swath of working poor in America.   Other countries like Britain and Canada show that when EVERYONE is in a program, from the Prime Minister's children to the woman cleaning your home, it remains popular and demands full funding.  That is why Medicare for ALL, not some, is so important.  That is why Universal affordable preschool and college (which is a right in other enlightened nations) is so important.  When we're all in, we're all in.  The second we start leaving people out, the program is under attack.

3.  Republicans are Socialists whenever it involves bailing out the mistakes of the "Free Market" The Republican Party is fine with the US taxpayers bailing out bad bank, savings in loan and other investment and business decisions made by private enterprise.  That is spending our hard-earned tax dollars on bad business decisions but somehow because the money goes to business instead of hard-working individuals, it is okay.  Recently the Trump administration announced a new round of Farm subsidies (presumably to shore up support in agricultural states like Iowa that have been hit hard by the trade war with China).  Those are also socialist policies that are embraced when convenient.

4.  "It's the economy, stupid" applies to the real people's economy not the Wall Street economy.   While the Wall Street economy may be booming, that doesn't trickle down to Main Street.  Social Democratic programs like Medicare for All, raising the minimum wage and universal preschool do.  Elections are won on who best makes this case.  
For more read my post, It's Our Economy (and We're Not) Stupid

5.  Social Democracy is the best antidote to authoritarian oligarchy.  While candidates can't and shouldn't run away from the label of socialism because large vested interest-funded campaigns will use it as a scare tactic regardless, it is smart to distinguish between socialism and social democracy and in this speech Bernie has done so.  Social democracy is where we have social programs funded by taxpayers in a democracy, rather than socialist authoritarian regimes.  Indeed he goes further and calls for a Economic Bill of Rights (the last piece of unfinished business in FDR's New Deal).  Bernie makes an eloquent case that social democracy is indeed the greatest antidote to authoritarian oligarchy that the current president advocates.  As Bernie so often points out, we have a situation where the wealthiest 3 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of Americans (a fact that Politifact rates as true btw).  The rise of the authoritarian right in this country and in the world can be directly traced to increasing economic insecurity particularly among white people.  The right uses this economic insecurity to divide us, and rather than have us notice that Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos pays no taxes and get angry about that, they direct us to be angry at immigrants, at muslims, at Jews, at each other.  Social democratic programs like Medicare for All use our tax dollars to create economic security.  When we have economic security, we don't need to attack one another.

Meet my Socialist Cowboy Father Nick Nichols--Happy Father's Day--he would have been 88

"Dads are most ordinary men turned by love into heroes, adventurers, story-tellers, and singers of song. "     ~Pam Brown

Prescott "Nick" Nichols 1931-1987

My father Prescott "Nick" Nichols was a socialist cowboy and he was my hero.  Despite (or perhaps because of) being an altar boy as a child, he was not consciously a spiritual man.  He would have maybe said he was an atheist, or at least agnostic.  He was, however, the presence of unconditional love in my life.  Raised riding a horse to highschool in the Southern California desert, he later became a professor of, and the founder of the Comparative Literature Department at San Diego State University.    In a time when this was less likely he taught Prison Literature, Working Class Literature, Third World Literature and Feminist Literature--yes a white man doing all that lol.  He also though played a significant role in initiating collective bargaining for state university professors, particularly working hard to protect part-time professors many of whom were female and/or of color. 
In his spare time he marched against the Vietnam War, picketed supermarkets that were undermining the newly formed United Farmworkers Union and formed and led friends of the Black Panthers in San Diego, and the Democratic Socialists of America chapter. 
He also wrote many plays, The Song of Short-Handled Hoe, Hawks & Doves, Soapbox, as well as adapting several works of Jean-Paul Sartre to the stage.
He married and loved my mother, a gorgeous belle born in the cradle of the confederacy and raised in the segregated south and whisked her off to California in the late 50's.
One of my favorite comments of my mother on being married to my father, "do you think its easy to be married to Jesus Christ?"  Interesting question.
To me, of course, he was mostly just my Papa.  He taught me to ride a bike, to throw a softball, to body surf, and to play poker and bridge.  When we played poker, we played for keeps and he staked us with pennies.  We learned to say things like "read 'em and weep," and "the little lady bets."  For bridge he imparted wisdom too: "there's many a man in the poorhouses of London who forgot to pull trump," "fourth from your longest and strongest" or "lead through strength rather than up to strength."

My father died of a heart attack at the age of 55 in 1987 (Link to his obit in the Los Angeles Times).  My mother Maryann "Lee" Nichols (who is still alive today at 85) later prevailed in a Workers Comp claim against San Diego State University for stress contributing to a heart attack.  It was discovered in that process that the university had deliberately retaliated against my father for his union organizing activities.  I always felt that the stress that really killed him was Ronald Reagan being president. Pa had spent his final middle-aged years protesting the US funded Contra Wars against the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

At his death, the students and colleagues petitioned SDSU successfully to name a central quad the "Nick Nichols Free Speech Plaza"-- it was later built over as a parking lot.  

Pa also always said, no matter what had happened.  "Don't worry, honey, it will get better.  This too shall pass."  And he was right.  Pa, you would have loved President Bernie Sanders.

Comparison of Top Presidential Candidates on Use of Their Power of Word for a World that Works for Everyone

Snicholsblog spiritually scientific rankings

copyright 2019

This is Part 6 of a multi-part series examining how we use the Power of the Word in politics, particularly in the 2020 presidential race.  Rev. Sara S. Nichols is senior minister at the Center for Spiritual Living, Davis and the Spiritual Director of All is Well Institute which supports and teaches people how to heal themselves using spiritual tools.  Trained as an attorney, before coming to spiritual science, she was a legislative and communications advocate for Medicare for All and other consumer issues in Congress and the California legislature.

Part 1 -- What exactly is the Power of the Word and How does it Work in Politics?

Part 2 -- Donald Trump and the Power of the Word

Part 3 -- Bernie Sanders and the Power of the Word
Part 4 --Marianne Williamson and the Power of the Word

Part 5 --Pete Buttigieg and the Power of the Word

In this series, we confine ourselves primarily to the question of how effectively does the candidate work with the power of their word.  In other words, given how they marshall universal law to their favor through the power of the word, how much do they appear to be grounded in a vision of a world that works for everyone, how likely are they to win, and when they assume the White House, what are they likely to accomplish?

My assumption is that every Democratic challenger for president shares most of the same policy positions (affordable universal health care and education, pro civil rights, combat climate change, raise the minimum wage, pro gun control).  There are plenty of other writers out there that will spend their time evaluating the nuances of where Democratic candidates for president are on these issues. And most news forums will spend their time looking at the experience, the demographics and the charisma of the candidates, all of which play a role in whether they will win.

Here are my rankings of the candidates I've thought closely about (not all of whom I've written a whole post about and all of whom I reserve the right to change my mind about ). The 4 charts below are incorporated in the chart at the top. Obviously this is completely nonscientific and just my own subjective analysis. But I wanted to give my relative rankings so that you could see how they stack up on what I care about.

See text above for detail--this is basically the degree of confidence candidates have for making things happen with their word, regardless of apparent limitations or conditions.  The incumbent president is VERY good at this and so to win, we need someone who also consciously uses their word.

What is being evaluated here is the degree to which candidates speak as if they are here to create or reveal a word that includes and works for every person, regardless of who they are

Mayor Pete Buttigieg and the Power of the Word

This is Part 5 of a multi-part series examining how we use the Power of the Word in politics, particularly in the 2020 presidential race.  Rev. Sara S. Nichols is senior minister at the Center for Spiritual Living, Davis and the Spiritual Director of All is Well Institute which supports and teaches people how to heal themselves using spiritual tools.  Trained as an attorney, before coming to spiritual science, she was a legislative and communications advocate for Medicare for All and other consumer issues in Congress and the California legislature.

Part 1 -- What exactly is the Power of the Word and How does it Work in Politics?

Part 2 -- Donald Trump and the Power of the Word

Part 3 -- Bernie Sanders and the Power of the Word
Part 4 --Marianne Williamson and the Power of the Word

Part 5 --Pete Buttigieg and the Power of the Word

Part 6 --Comparison of Top 2020 Presidential Candidates

In this series, we confine ourselves primarily to the question of how effectively does the candidate work with the power of their word.  In other words, given how they marshall universal law to their favor through the power of the word, how much do they appear to be grounded in a vision of a world that works for everyone, how likely are they to win, and when they assume the White House, what are they likely to accomplish?

My assumption is that every Democratic challenger for president shares most of the same policy positions (affordable universal health care and education, pro civil rights, combat climate change, raise the minimum wage, pro gun control).  There are plenty of other writers out there that will spend their time evaluating the nuances of where Democratic candidates for president are on these issues. And most news forums will spend their time looking at the experience, the demographics and the charisma of the candidates, all of which play a role in whether they will win.

Let's rate Mayor Pete Buttigieg on the criteria that I'm looking at. Currently, Buttigieg is tied for 5th place on my rankings with Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) on his ability to win the presidency in 2020 and govern from values of integrity and love. He is one of the most likely to win, however, basically tied with Sanders and Williamson in my evaluation in that category. But the least likely of the 3 of them to govern from integrity and love rather than what serves his political interest and resume. Note that Warren scores absolutely top points for grounding her vision in a World that Works for Everyone and in likelihood to govern from these values but falls well short on use of her word to win. Contrast that with the incumbent president who has top ranks on use of the power of the word to win and zeros for grounding his word in a World that Works for Everyone or shared values. In the total chart, Sanders is the top Democratic candidate who combines use of Power of the Word with likelihood to win and govern based on shared values.

Scale of 1 - 10 10 being the best

• Buttigieg effective Use of Power of his Word -- 9 (Simply by vaulting to the top of a crowded field Buttigieg strong at bringing forth what he wants using his word; He used it to become mayor, to become a Rhodes Scholar as well)
• Buttigieg potential use of his word to win the nomination and presidency -- 8 (I think his command of the word, and his thirst for winning and accolades could carry him to the nomination and to the presidency. He is better suited to beat the incumbent president on his own terms than many).
• Buttigieg likelihood of governing based on a World that Works for Everyone upon assuming presidency -- 5 (based on the Robinson article's close reading of his own Memoir and his record as mayor).
• Buttigieg grounding his Word in love, integrity, diversity and inclusion, accountability, caring--7 He does talk like his shared values include diversity and inclusion, accountability, love, compassion, caring and integrity.

How Buttigieg stacks up against other contenders:

For More on this see: Comparison of 2020 Presidential Candidates

Pete Buttigieg's candidacy reminds me so much of Bill Clinton's--which terrifies me. Every time I ever listen to Bill Clinton speak, I love him. Every time I watched him govern, I hated him. If I'm honest, I did not want to write this piece, because to evaluate Mayor Pete's use of the Power of the Word, I knew I would have to listen to him speak. And, seeing the growing support for this unlikely candidate, I feared I would be sucked in by his words and presence, just as I am by President Clinton's. I didn't want to forget Nathan Robinson's close reading of Pete Buttigieg's political memoir, Shortest Way Home. In it, Robinson really looks at what Pete Buttigieg is most proud of: walking by picketing low wage workers at Harvard on his way to a policy forum, destroying 1000 homes and replacing good higher paying jobs with robots or computers in South Bend, and choosing to work for a large corporate consulting firm in his first job post Rhodes Scholar are what "Mayor Pete" brags about in his book.

And, dag nabbit, I AM sucked in. I just spent a solid hour binge-watching Buttigieg on Youtube and, man, that guy can talk:

On racial inequality in his city of South Bend, Indiana:

"These racial inequities didn't just happen, they're not an accident. They are in many cases the consequences of policies. Which means we have to have not just non racist policies but anti racist policies. I may not be able to convince every voter to be for me but at the very least I need to make sure that every voter out there knows that I'm for them." on Trevor Noah's The Daily Show

On education:

"The biggest thing we need to do for education is have a Secretary of Education who is actually for public education" (also on The Daily Show)

In a townhall forum on MSNBC in Fresno recently, on full restoration of felons voting rights, he somehow manages to be against it at the same time as cogently reflecting the argument of why we might want to be for it without sounding like he's wishy-washy. I'm paraphrasing here because I caught it on XM cable radio. He said something like this:

I think its defensible to lose, at least temporarily, some rights of citizenship, when you're convicted of a serious crime. At the same time, I'm mindful that this only makes sense if we have a fair justice system where the only factor for likeliness of incarceration is whether you've committed the crime. And that's actually not what we have now. Men of color, particularly African American men, are far more likely to be incarcerated than any other demographic so what appears to be a neutral policy is actually not neutral at all. So I'm thinking about whether that affects my position.

What Buttigieg is doing here is simultaneously taking the position that middle white America wants to hear him take and then educating middle white America on why that might not be as reasonable a position as they say it is, while also showing progressive America including people of color that he understands the disparate effect and the indefensibility of this policy. Normally, a candidate can't have it both ways, but somehow Buttigieg does (not something, by the way, that Senator Kamala Harris is pulling off right now in her obvious attempts to duck tough issues), that is just insanely skillful and it seems to be out of his own head, not a playbook.

So what I don't want to talk about is that Mayor Pete is an extraordinarily good talker. And when a 37 year old gay small city Mayor from a deep red state somehow vaults themselves into contention with Vice President Joe Biden, and leaders of the progressive movement Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, you gotta take notice at the results of his talking.

In some respects the results speak for themselves. Just as it defies probability that an arrogant, pathologically lying, sexually assaulting, asset-inflating, pro wrestler personality with NO political experience could be president. It defies probability that someone with Pete Buttigieg's profile would distinguish themselves in this crowded field of candidates.

Pete Buttigieg, on the other hand, like other Rhodes Scholars before him, may be more interested in obtaining the ultimate resume capper than in actually helping the people he purports to champion--why else would he brag about the unfortunate "accomplishments" flagged by Nathan Robinson's "All about Pete" piece? Indeed, his "walk-up" song (flagged by The Washington Post in their wonderful Daily 202 column) is "High Hopes":

The lyrics seem to fit more Buttigieg's high hopes to be a "one in a million" than the hopes of a nation to be lifted out of poverty or restored to integrity.

In many respects, I currently view Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg exactly antithetically within the Democratic field (caveat caveat caveat). Elizabeth Warren would be a dream president in terms of policies, commitment to real people and demonstrable commitment to a world that works for everyone. Yet, despite being a decent campaigner for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and being beloved by many, she seems to fall into the President's cleverly laid traps and fumble her way out of them. She can be so committed to good policy that she stays in details and doesn't routinely use the Power of the Word to bring into reality what she knows to be the truth in her head.

The short version is that at this point I think Pete Buttigieg might be able to use the power of his word to beat the incumbent president and then govern like Bill Clinton. While true progressive Elizabeth Warren has yet to demonstrate that she has the right chops to survive the Republican candidate's withering tweet storms. The only candidate for President I currently believe can employ the power of the word to beat the incumbent AND I know will work for a world that works for everyone is Bernie Sanders.

Here's Buttigieg answering some questions--mostly a puff piece but gives you a feel for him if you haven't already gotten it: