So Hillary had her big night last evening, claiming four of the five states up for grabs in yesterday's Northeast primaries. She now looks increasingly like the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Still, questions remain. There are investigations on voter suppression in the states of Arizona and New York. And although she does have a lead, it is nowhere near as big as the major media outlets continue to insist that it is. And Bernie rightly pointed out that many independents have been turned away, and that on average, they typically vote in his favor by a 2 to 1 margin. Three million independents were turned away from New York's primaries last week. That, mixed with all of the questions of people being taken off the voting list, raises more than a few eyebrows, particularly since many of the people now benefitting from these situations were the very same ones who felt so outraged by many of these same things during the 2000 election.
Bernie Sanders, in his speech on a disappointing night, reminded Democrats of what is at stake. He did not pull any punches, as the Hillary campaign people want him to do, and reminded them that in the fall, unlike the primary season, it is not a closed election process. Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike will all be voting, and the dislike and distrust of Hillary still runs deep - and with good reason.
He reminded them also that polls showed him faring better - even far better - than Hillary against Donald Trump and the other remaining Republican candidates. Again, this is largely because Hillary remains popular among Democrats, but that outside of these closed circles, people view her, and her history, with considerable skepticism.
One of the major things that the Hillary people want Bernie to tone down are the criticisms from the hundreds of thousands of dollars that she made giving speeches for Goldman Sachs, and Sanders has relentlessly demanded that Hillary release the transcripts of these speeches, which she has steadfastly refused to do, suggesting that it is unfair to demand this of her. But Bernie's point is about transparency among government elites, and ensuring that there is fairness, and no conflicts of interest. After all, he strongly insinuates that her unusually strong ties with the big banks and other Wall Street firms calls into question just where her loyalties would be. Would she truly do what she feels is best for the American people, or will she take care of the hands that take care of her and her financial needs first?
These are the attacks that anger Hillary supporters, because they have hurt her credibility, they say. Of course, another way to look at it is that Hillary's actions have hurt her image, and Bernie is simply exposing these truths, which Hillary and her supports obviously do not want.
Here's the thing: Hillary is for profit on everything. She and her husband clearly took a pro-profit approach for their personal lives, as by their own admission, they are now among the elite 1% financially. She obtains personal profits from Wall Street firms and the big banks, and profits politically from these enormous sums, as well. As a politician, she always seems to vote in favor of shady deals, although she might express regret later on. She did not vote for NAFTA, as she was not an elected official at the time. However, she favored it, although now, she has expressed regret for it. She helped design the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but then expressed disapproval of it in it's present form, suggesting she would favor changing certain aspects of it. How much she would change before bringing it into the law books as president is a mystery. She opposed the for-profit healthcare system in the United States in the 1990's, but now, she defends the system, suggesting that it merely needs incremental change (and oh, by the way, she receives huge sums from healthcare companies and the other firms that benefit from the unfair system). She supported the for-profit prison system that has put so many nonviolent offenders behind bars, although now she expresses regret about it, suggesting that maybe, they went too far. She was for the Keystone Pipeline, but now she hesitates. She was for welfare reform, now regretting that. She was opposed to gay marriage, although now she favors it.
Oh, and there is always the vote to empower President Bush to invade Iraq back in 2002. Yes, there is always that. She expresses regret about her vote these days, looking back.
Alright, well, that might not be so bad, in and of itself, right? I mean, sure, the rest of the world stood firmly against American intervention, and there were plenty of warnings that Saddam's Iraq did not have those WMD's, and yes, over 4,000 American troops and over 100,000 Iraqis were killed as a result of the ensuing war, to say nothing of the injured and maimed. But, she's entitled to change her mind, right?
Well, in 2011, this is what she had to say about Iraq: “It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity."
Does that sound like a woman who's truly learned her lesson, after a lot of hand-wringing, and a lot of soul searching over her decision to help make the Iraq quagmire a reality?
I have said this before, and I will say it here again: There is absolutely nothing that makes Hillary Clinton stand out as a major presidential candidate, other than the fact that she is a woman. She might become the first woman president, and that would make history. But literally everything else about her is business as usual, politics as usual. She is the poster child of a tired Washington insider with absolutely no new ideas, and with a proven record of untrustworthiness.
Look again at that list of decisions that she made that she later expressed regret for. In each of those decisions, she put profit over what was best for the American people, and with that quote about Iraq, nine years after she voted for giving President Bush greater power to pursue the Iraq invasion (a de facto pro-war vote, in other words), she has shown that there are no lessons learned with this woman. She transparently reflects the worst character traits of selfishness and narrow self-interest that this country too often gravitates towards politically. She will bring absolutely nothing new to the White House, other than the fact that we finally would be able to claim that we have had a woman as president.
Let's save that distinction for someone more deserving, like perhaps Elizabeth Warren. Hillary Clinton does not deserve the presidency, and if this unusual election year has shown anything, it is that Americans are beginning to tire of establishment politicians only seeking their own interests, at the expense of what is best for Americans themselves. There is clearly growing disaffection towards such politicians, and it seems that the establishment in both parties are increasingly willing to circumvent the spirit of democracy itself in order to retain their power and privilege.
Clinton has suggested that there is more that divides supporters of Bernie Sanders and her supporters, in a transparent attempt to pander to Bernie fans.
But don't you believe it!
There is a reason why Team Hillary has called on Sanders to tone down his attacks, and that is because she is vulnerable, and these attacks expose her weakness. What they want is for Bernie and his supporters to be team players, in order to help get Democrats to win this election, as if it were all a game. But Bernie Sanders wants real change in Washington, and he feels that the American people deserve better than the same old same old. It is an idea who's time has come.
People who believe in this message of hope for the future, and for a turn from the futile and unsustainable greed that has dominated American politics for decades now, cannot simply settle for Hillary. She represents the very worst of American politics, and to be frank, she does not deserve our vote. Neither does Donald Trump. Neither does Ted Cruz, or John Kasich for that matter.
We need something new, and I am standing by my man, Bernie Sanders. He is the only major candidate who presents the possibility of a new reality in American politics. He is not a phony, does not say things to pander to the voters one minute, then turns around and does something else entirely. He has tirelessly advocated for what is best for the American middle class, for average people.
True, Hillary Clinton has taken a more progressive stance in recent months, since she has tried to shake Bernie Sanders. Suddenly, she sounded a lot like him. But how long do you think that will last? I am willing to bet it will not last past the Democratic National Convention, once the general election is underway (always assuming she is the nominee). And I would be willing to place as much money as I can that another Clinton presidency would not see much, if any, of the progressive tone that she has taken be put into action once she would indeed be Madam President, always assuming she does occupy the Oval Office. She has a history of saying what she needs to in order to get elected, and then doing something entirely different, and entirely disappointing, at that, once she has gotten the office that she desired.
Please do not empower this hungry and greedy politician anymore.
It's time for real change. It's still time for Bernie, despite the largely disappointing results last night!