My Dilemma

Posted by Fe Bongolan

150+fe-logo-thumb

Fe Bongolan’s gotten in the habit of being an “early adopter” in recent presidential races, choosing her candidate and diving into the campaign. This year, the choice between Democratic candidates is not so clear — and so far, just gets murkier, both for positive and negative reasons. Yet, it’s not the worst position to be in.

I confess. I am in a bit of a mild self-induced panic. I have not come out for either Hillary or Bernie and the Iowa caucuses are a week away. Excuse me while I go a bit wonky in today’s column, but I need to air things out.

fe-logo-13-feb-09-250-px1

Being this undecided is unusual for me. After the 2000 Presidential election debacle, during the 2004 and 2008 election cycles I became an “early adopter.” A label coined by professionals in political campaigning, early adopters are so enthralled by message and candidate that they sign on, contribute money, and soap-box on blogs and message board before the primaries even begin.

That was me in 2003 for John Kerry. He seemed the right answer for his military and foreign policy experience, and he took it in the shorts by more progressive Democrats, who stumped for Howard Dean. They objected vehemently to Kerry’s vote on the Iraq War Authorization. But then came the killer ground game in Iowa, which sealed Kerry’s deal in the caucuses; followed by the Dean scream; and the win in New Hampshire, which caved Dean’s hopes for the nomination.

We all know what happened afterwards — the swift-boaters Karl Rove employed to undermine Kerry’s one strength — his experience in the military and his foreign policy credibility as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — did its work. The key loss of Ohio — a purple state heavily fought for, with some purported scurrilous vote tampering by Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State — decided the election. The day after the 2004 presidential election was a dark day for the country.

Fortunately, something was prescient about John Kerry’s choosing Senator Barack Obama for the DNC Convention keynote speech earlier during the summer of 2004. The Convention keynote address is the “anointing” speech for the top rising star of the Democratic party. And Kerry and his convention-planning team were on the money. Listening to Senator Obama was revelatory. So much so, that while I was there in 2004 on that convention center floor in Boston, I had to call my friends in California to get them to watch Obama’s speech. I admitted to them and to myself right then and there that this man would be president in four years. Not Kerry. I was right.

So, in 2007, I was ready for Barack Obama, who was by all accounts a long shot — African American, four years a US Senator, and from outside the mainstream “inevitability” of the Clinton Machine of centrist-leaning Democrats. I signed on, phone banked, contributed, and fought against the Clinton machine that threatened to tear the Democratic Party apart during the South Carolina primaries. It was then that my dislike and distrust of Hillary Clinton and the entire Clinton Machine was so hot that it washed me clean of any remaining illusions I had about her.

Eight years later, with two terms under his belt, President Obama is leaving his office to be claimed by one of the next two leading contenders. And this is where I can’t adopt. Not early. Too much concerns me about both Democratic candidates that I cannot be ready for Hillary or feel the Bern. Not yet.

It’s not because I still distrust Hillary. I have softened my view of her since she became Secretary of State under the Obama Administration, and see her as a strong public servant. She would be a good problem-solving president. But there are still major questions hanging over her about US foreign policy in Libya, which gets her Republican detractors hot to establish yet another Benghazi probe.

And what about her role leading up to the current mess in Syria? I can imagine what a Trump or Cruz campaign would do to negatively meme her if she were the nominee, let alone the baggage the name ‘Clinton’ would inspire. Then, there’s her connection to the 1% — the bankers, the contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Then there’s Bill.

Yet, as a teen for George McGovern in 1972 (I was a political junkie early on), Bernie Sanders’ populist message makes me hope and despair simultaneously. His message against the corrupt establishment in Washington rings true, and is absolutely timely for the mess that’s going on in Washington DC. But as Charles Blow says in his op-ed in The New York Times:

…But practicality and incrementalism, as reasonable as that strategy and persona may be, are simply no match for what animates the Sanders campaign — a kind of kinetic, even if sometimes overblown, idealism. His is a passionate exposition of liberalism — and yes, democratic socialism — in its most positive light.

But, let me be clear and unequivocal: I find his earnest philosophic positions to be clear and often laudable, but also somewhat quixotic. I think that he is promising far more than even he knows he can deliver, and the electability question is still a real one, even though polls now show him matching up well against possible Republican opponents.

As a West Coast liberal in California no less, I am somewhat shielded from the rest of the country, which leans conservative. The word “socialist” as a label in America is a broad brush dipped in blood. Add Democratic to the label and fears for a landslide Trump or Cruz victory triggers my McGovern Syndrome.

In the same article Mr. Blow is equally as critical of Mrs. Clinton:

In October, when Hillary Clinton made a spectacle of the congressional Benghazi committee during a marathon interrogation that seemed designed to make a spectacle of her, she emerged stronger than ever. Her polls numbers surged.

That performance had come on the heels of a strong debate performance the week before in the first Democratic presidential debate. She had bolstered the image she wanted to project: strong, smart, capable and battle-tested.

But now, on the verge of Monday night’s Democratic town hall in Iowa — the last time the candidates will face off before the caucuses in that state — and with Bernie Sanders’s poll numbers climbing not only in Iowa, but also in New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign seems increasingly desperate and reckless.

I noticed the turn in the last debate as Clinton seemed to me to go too far in her attacks on Sanders, while simultaneously painting herself into a box that will be very hard to escape.

The written readings for all 12 signs of Vision Quest are available, and Eric is working on the audio astrology and rune readings! Order all 12 signs here, or individual signs here.

The written readings for all 12 signs of Vision Quest are available for instant access, and Eric is working on the audio astrology and rune readings! Order all 12 signs here, or select individual signs here.

So, a week before the Iowa caucuses I am hovering between the negatives I perceive between the two candidates. And this is based from my short-lived experience in political campaigning and observing the long game of politics over the last forty years as a Democratic voter in the United States.

Which way do I go? I don’t expect answers today or tomorrow. I don’t even expect them next week when the primaries start. There’s a long road ahead to the summer and the conventions. And there are enough questions hanging over both candidates for me that I need some assurance on as a voter. As a someone who plans to retire in the next five or six years, where will my Social Security account be? Who will sit on the Supreme Court in the next three years?

Looking at the positives between both, being a Democrat choosing between Hillary or Bernie is not a bad thing. Even with her baggage, Hillary has a lot of experience in how to handle the shit-storm that is Washington DC politics. Bernie has the exact right vision of where this country could go. He is inspirational and really touches a deep nerve in a country desirous of changing a corrupt system. How he plans to do it is still unclear.

One thing is for certain. I feel we’re in much better shape than to be a Republican having to choose between Trump or Cruz, the front-runners in Iowa — of which Senator Lindsay Graham famously remarked last week: “It’s like being shot or poisoned. What does it really matter?”

Let that be THEIR dilemma.

Posted in Columnist on | 3 comments
Fe Bongolan

About Fe Bongolan

Planet Waves writer Fe Bongolan lives in Oakland, California. Her column, "Fe-911," has been featured on Planet Waves since 2008. As an actor and dramaturge, Fe is a core member of Cultural Odyssey's "The Medea Project -- Theater for Incarcerated Women," producing work that empowers the voices of all women in trouble, from ex-offenders, women with HIV-AIDS, to young girls and women at risk. A Planet Waves fan from almost the beginning of Eric's astrology career, Fe is a public sector employee who describes herself as a "mystical public servant." When it comes to art, culture and politics, she loves reading between the lines.

3 thoughts on “My Dilemma

  1. Barbara Koehler

    I really do understand your dilemma Fe. I too have vacillated between the common sense of supporting Hillary and the passion of supporting Bernie. One thing you said, well really 2 things you said sparked a thought. You said “. . observing the long game of politics over the last 40 years. . ” and “..I need some assurance. . ” tells me you have learned the hard way, from years of experience, how to gage a politician in this Game of Chance (or who knows what the voters want). Your mind knows when one of them is out of his depth. You are not one to be wooed by fairy tales that appeal to your imagination. But here is the difference between now and the last 40 years.

    Transiting Uranus is in the apex point of a Yod pattern with his own 3-conjunctions-to-Pluto degrees that were sextile Neptune’s 3 degrees 50 years ago. All systems are go for exploding out of the old paradigm and into the new. Transiting Neptune for his part is squaring the U.S. Sibly Uranus which is where Neptune met Pluto in 1891, one hundred and twenty five years ago. Look at those charts from 1965 and 66 and 1891 and you will get an inkling of what their (Pluto, Uranus, Neptune) game plans were for transforming humans by speeding up their evolution process.

    In 1891 (August 2nd 11:10 AM) Pluto and Neptune at 8+ Gemini were sextile Mars and Chiron at 8+ Leo and this weekend, before the Iowa Caucus, transiting Venus will form a Yod to that 1891 sextile from her position at 8+ Capricorn. If that isn’t convincing enough, she will also be quincunx (adjustment) the U.S. Sibly Uranus at 8+ Gemini and sextile the transiting Neptune at 8+ Pisces where the U.S. Ceres is. The Universe is seeking a balance between the positive and negative (male/female, heart/mind) by incorporating the feminine influences of Venus and Ceres in this 1st U.S. vote.

    All 3 of the Uranus-Pluto conjunctions in Virgo were sextile Neptune in Scorpio and they all formed a yod to the U.S. Sibly Chiron at 20+ Aries. U.S. Chiron opposes U.S. Juno at 20+ Libra. TRANSITING Uranus will reach the U.S. Chiron (again) in April at the same time TRANSITING Chiron opposes the U.S. Neptune in Virgo, which is where the presently trans. Jupiter and trans. North Node (opportunity) are. This 1891 sextile was the start of the Uranus-Pluto cycle which is in its opening square now, although the 7 exact squares between Uranus and Pluto have already been completed.

    The Yod-turned-Boomerang pattern that becomes effective in April (although it first took place in June 2015 through August 2015) puts U.S. Chiron in the position of the Yod apex where adjustment must take place. By having U.S. Juno (supporter of the disenfranchised) opposite the apex of the Yod it becomes a Boomerang pattern and U.S. Juno becomes the target of the accumulated energies of the 1960’s Uranus-Pluto cycle, + trans. Uranus + U.S. natal Chiron. Again, by emphasizing Juno the Universe is attempting to balance positive/negative, yin/yang, heart/mind.

    If you or I see this as a time to build on the old paradigm such as insuring that Obamacare survives, rather than a time to go for the new paradigm, or follow your bliss as Joseph Campbell might say, your mind will determine that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for U.S. President. You would be half right. But what does your heart say?

    My heart says (as scared as I am of being wrong and losing to a Republican) Bernie Sanders, as unlikely as he looks and sounds and appears on record as a major doer, is the most honest and trustworthy person running for President of the U.S. His core reason for running – to get Wall St. out of the Election Process – is what must be accomplished before any hope of changing government can happen. There can be no assurances except within your soul this time and you must believe that within your heart if you want to move humanity forward – up the ladder of evolution. It is time to think with your heart as well as your mind.
    be

    1. Fe BongolanFe Bongolan Post author

      There’s an interesting reality about politics which we should unearth here, and I have been thinking about for the last two days:

      Bernie’s proposals are going to require a MAJORITY in Congress. And better than the one Obama had when he passed the ACA. There is a problem with getting Millennials to the polls during mid-terms — which is where the Republicans made their hay with the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus, causing what we see as the gridlock and the compromise which has disaffected most progressives around the country.

      I don’t fear Bernie’s ideas. In fact, I love them. However, I am afraid of most young people who vote their passion now will bounce out of politics in the next two years — as is their want to do during non-Presidential election years, and we could be stuck with a worse situation than we have now. With Bernie’s administration left holding the bag.

      This is probably my fear talking, but I have also not only observed politicians but the voters. The trends are not promising at the moment.

  2. Barbara Koehler

    Excuse me I said in the 4th paragraph that the “1891 sextile” when I should have said the 1965-66 sextile was the start of the Uranus-Pluto cycle. . .
    (too much heart and not enuf brain maybe?)
    be

Leave a Reply