IMO Bernie and Clinton: Close on Social Issues. On Wealth and Power Issues: Bernie's Way Better

Last edited Sat Nov 7, 2015, 09:00 PM - Edit history (2)

(I apologize for not giving much attention to O'Malley here. But the focus of attention has obviously been on Clinton and Sanders. O'Malley shouldn't be neglected.)

And this is all just IMO....

We go back and forth on sexism,women's rights, racism,LGBT issues, civil rights, guns, childcare, etc.......

All important issues. We should hold all of the candidates to high standards. And IMO, Sanders, Clinton and O'Malley all meet those standards as candidates and would if elected...... Sure, there are some variances, some maybe a little stronger or weaker in specifics. But I don't see any fundamental differences in their behavior or policies or values on the so-called "social issues" which would be deal breakers.

But here's the sticky wicket.

On issues of Wealth and Power -- who has them and who's lost them, and what we can do about it -- if you apply the liberal/progressive values the Democratic Party claims to stand for, and who the candidates traditionally represent, it's Bernie by far. O'Malley too, potentially.

The specific s reasons I believe that are too long to be repeated here endlessly. Not just past ties and affiliations and positions, but present ones. The phrases like "tied to big banks" and "beholden to large corporations" may have become cliches that ease into one ear and out the other.

But they unfortunately have too much truth to them.

Not that Hillary's a bad person, and doesn't believe in what she says. I'm sure she believes that she is for the middle class and the disadvantaged. But she is just so locked into, surrounded by and an integral part of a matrix of elite interests that have formed a defcto Corporate Oligarchy. I don't know that she can escape that.

It's a worldview that works for a few but is pushing down the vast majority. It's a new Gilded Age, where the Robber Barons created libraries, but got the money from screwing the working class and rigging the system for personal and corporate gain.

This is not It's just what is obvious and is just below the surface. Not even below the surface. Right there on the surface (although glossed over by the MSM and conventional wisdom of partisan politics).

The TPP, for example, is a buzzword. But it has the potential to further erode democracy and the ability to make national policy or enforce local laws, hasten the loss of the middle class, and lower standards for many things. These trade agreements are bad by design. It's not a matter of tweaking. There are BETTER and more honest ways to draw up trade policy. The Gold Standard of "free trade" agreements are just Fools Gold.

Just one of many examples. If we want to turn away the ship from the iceburg, we have to stop doing this stuff to ourselves. If we'd stopped dong it in the 80's and 90's we'd be a lot better off today. Do we want to keep doing it?

This will fall on deaf ears, I know. But i would hope that more people would take a hard look at whether we really want to perpetuate that, or if it's time to open the doors, let some fresh air in, and give others besides the well-connected and wealthy a chance to represent the opposition to the GOP, and push for more fundamental reform.

Just my two cents