Assuming Democrats have a progressive conscience in 2016, only one candidate will be victorious in the primaries, and I explain my thought process in this YouTube segment. In addition, my appearances on The Benjamin Dixon Show and The Ring of Fire also highlight the vast differences between Bernie and Hillary.
There's a myth that a "moderate" Clinton and progressive Sanders are similar presidential candidates; a fable that ignores Bush's AUMF and Clinton's hawkish foreign policy, ties to Wall Street, and prison lobbyists. On issues that correlate directly to the lives of millions both within the U.S. and around the world, Clinton and Sanders go in opposite directions.
The AUMF, legislation allowing the president to unilaterally send Americans into battle for a limited time without Congressional approval, should deter any progressive from voting for Hillary Clinton.
Also, a recent Black Lives Matter protest of Clinton's event highlights the fact non-white Democrats are essential to any lead in the polls. Ironically, Clinton waited almost three weeks to address Ferguson, once used a 3 AM ad in 2008 that had a "racist sub-message," and today accepts money from prison lobbyists. This speaks volumes.
No, it's not chicken or fish, unless one of the dishes was made in a prison; Hillary Clinton's campaign accepts donations from prison lobbyists. The truth is that both candidates are the antithesis of one another when it comes to the presidency. The powers directly tied to the Oval Office aren't Congressional votes. They consist of the ability to wage war, dictate U.S. foreign policy, decide upon whether or not to confront Wall Street or bailout banks, and if we're to embark upon unfair trade deals or colossal oil pipelines.
On foreign policy, Wall Street, war, and trade, Hillary Clinton leans towards the Republican Party. POLITICO once labeled Clinton Wall Street Republicans' dark secret and The New York Times once asked Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
In stark contrast, Bernie Sanders wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall, break up "Too Big to Fail" banks, and says "I'll be damned" if we send more Americans back to fight the same wars in the Middle East.
President Obama just sent American troops to Syria, so ask yourself how President Hillary Clinton and President Bernie Sanders would differ on this issue.
Let's first, however, discuss the concept of "inevitability." The following is a transcript of a CNN segment that aired on March 10, 2000, only one day before the Dotcom crash:
In The Money
Paving the Road to Nasdaq 6000
TERRY KEENAN, CNN ANCHOR: The morning after the Nasdaq powers its way to 5K, what stocks could pave the road to 6000? And will the Dow ever catch up?
TUCKER: ...One day after the Nasdaq closes above 5000 for the first time ever, it is Nasdaq 5100, blowing right by that barrier as well as techs continue their historic run.
The next day after this CNN broadcast, the tech bubble burst and stocks crashed. Time writes that, "In less than a month, nearly a trillion dollars worth of stock value had completely evaporated."
So you've heard that poll showing Hillary Clinton up by a wide margin now in Iowa?
As we take a trip down memory lane, also remember that just several weeks ago, Newsweek ran a headline titled Bernie Sanders Leads Hillary Clinton in Iowa, New Hampshire, Poll Finds. In addition, it would unprecedented to have a nominee for the presidency who's emails are being investigated by the FBI, but again, supporters of Clinton have erased the definition of "scandal" from the dictionary.
Therefore, let's address the inevitability of Hillary Clinton among educated observers. Recent American history shows that a dominant paradigm of thought can shift instantly; turning one-time experts into blind followers. A February 19, 2003 CNN Money article titled No Housing Bubble Trouble exemplifies the antitheses of future events:
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The American appetite for habitation grew even stronger -- impossible as that seems -- in January, the government said Wednesday, renewing concerns that the U.S. housing market is in a dangerous bubble, like stocks in the 1990s.
Don't bet on it, economists say.
...The housing market has, in fact, been one of the lone bright spots of an otherwise dreary economy. Higher home values have made homeowners feel wealthier, encouraging consumer spending, which makes up more than two-thirds of the total U.S. economy.
Low rates also have encouraged a frenzy of refinancing, which has allowed homeowners to lower their monthly payments and tap into their swelling home equity.
Even many economists said "don't bet on" a housing bubble, so it's safe to say that experts and a great percentage of educated observers can be woefully wrong on prognostication.
One poll in late September had Bernie Sanders within 7 points of Hillary Clinton nationally. Today, some people gleefully mention the poll numbers citing Clinton's lead over Sanders, ignoring the fact that 57% of Americans according to CNN find the former Secretary of State "not honest or trustworthy."
Speaking of "not honest and trustworthy" coupled with the prevailing mentality of certain spectators, let's look at a stock once deemed a "strong buy" according to most brokerage firms. A Businessweek article titled Enron's Power Play explains how the energy giant's "huge network" and "deep pockets" made it a pioneer in its field:
Enron's success has not gone unnoticed, but it has a few advantages that competitors would be hard pressed to match. First is its expertise; it pioneered the model. It has dozens of PhDs in mathematics, physics, and other disciplines, and even hired a former shuttle astronaut to schedule satellite time. Enron also has built a huge network of buyers and sellers with a wide range of commodities to trade. With its deep pockets Enron has plenty of capital to keep its markets liquid.
Wow, Enron even had dozens of PhDs! Like almost everyone else in the media and Wall Street, Businessweek and others ran glowing stories on Enron. At the time, nobody deemed these stories hyperbole or unrealistic.
Finally, a Huffington Post article titled Hillary Clinton Says She'll End Private Prisons, Stop Accepting Their Money, highlights the dichotomy between rhetoric and action within the Clinton campaign:
Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC, according to Vice. Those companies operate a number of criminal and immigrant detention facilities, some of which have been plagued by allegations of abuse and poor treatment of detainees.
Immigrant and civil rights groups have urged Clinton to stop accepting contributions from donors with ties to GEO and CCA. Earlier Thursday, in announcing its co-founder Cesar Vargas was moving to the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the advocacy group Dream Action Coalition singled out Clinton for accepting those contributions.
Sanders recently introduced a bill to ban government contracts for private prisons, including immigrant detention centers.
In addition to prison lobbyists, the Clinton Foundation accepted $100,000 from Donald Trump, $10-$25 million from Saudi Arabia (not the bastion for women's rights), and four of Clinton's top five donors are Wall Street firms. Then there's a controversy over weapons deals.
When confronted with the knowledge that Clinton accepted money from Donald Trump, Saudi Arabia, and prison lobbyists, the campaign generally remains silent.
Forget the notion that you're choosing between Coke and Pepsi. This is a choice between polluted aquifers from the Keystone XL project and secret trade deals Clinton once supported 45 times; and another world where your president tackles wealth inequality and a future economic collapse by proposing to break up "Too Big to Fail Banks."
Ultimately, preventing more American troops in Syria will be the biggest issue, and we know how both Democratic candidates differ on foreign policy.
Therefore, if Democrats place their value system above a warped sense of pragmatism, ignoring ongoing FBI investigations and endless controversy, Bernie Sanders will easily defeat Hillary Clinton. Sanders already defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton, so the polls used to define pragmatism in 2016 already have Sanders winning a general election. Sanders already defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton, so the polls used to define pragmatism in 2016 already have Sanders winning a general election.