I couldn’t declare anyone the clear winner of last Tuesday’s Democratic debate, but I was sure of one thing: that the strong performance of Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders (as well as former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley) should convince Vice President Joe Biden that there was no obvious opening for him to run for president.
Maybe if Debbie Wasserman Schultz hadn't fixed the debate schedule in Clinton's favor Biden would of made a decision earlier. But the real issue here is how ineffective Obama has been as president. So how will Hillary Clinton get things done? Will she compromise on social security as Obama almost was ready to do? We all know she supports these trade deals even though now in the election she professes something different. To bad in this corporate media debate there was not any discussion of the ACA or healthcare. It would be interesting to hear the difference between Sanders and Clinton,and the positions of the other three. The ACA is an incredible give away to the corporate insurance industry.
Its incredible how far the corporate media has moved the goal posts. Bernie Sanders is a moderate,he wants a jobs program,he wants to make social security stronger for those at the bottom(real inflation, rent and food goes up and there will be no increase in social security next year).Things such as free public collage education-we were moving in that direction back in the 70's and have been going in reverse since. Just like the real minimum wage should be $18 to $20 if it kept up with inflation. Hillary and Biden are right wing democrats-I think Biden is less likely to sell out the poor and working class,but they are both bought and paid for-just like Obama.
And again the corporate media spin machine hard at work-Bernie Sanders comment on the emails was an indictment of the media for not addressing real issues like poverty,income inequality,and healthcare. Play the whole clip!
VP Biden may simply be in this race to defend and illuminate the historical record of the Obama Adm. Which shouldn't take very long, either. Shoot, that's still got be worth $30-40 million right there to the 1%, right? Other than that, I can see no other reason for his running, in the 2016 primary. Well, the hugging thing, possibly. He'd be a 3 time loser, too, and would still not break 20% of the Democratic primary rank-and-file voters. Maybe the PIC unions, HSA unions, MIC unions and Trumka's Groupies will throw all their weight behind " Smilen Joe " and change everything. Not!
Seems inaccurate an assessment since Truman used the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Johnson virtually created the Vietnam War from 1,700 advisors to 500,000 active combat troops. Sanders may not be a peacenik but he does want to get us disentangled from this endless war scenario in the Middle East and reduce the military budget to improve life at home.
He has repeatedly stated that he wants to reduce our presence in the Middle East and have our allies do what they have us doing for their benefit. In other words let them do it not us.
He has also talked a lot about providing free college educations (like do our allies thanks to our generosity) by reducing our bloated military budget to pay for education (and infrastructure repair too )
I just spoke to the military budget? As far as the Ukraine - I think he is presenting a position to counter Putin's position which is called diplomacy realpolitik. What about Syria? I am not aware of his position on it.
Bernie thinks $ 80 Billion yearly could be cut from the DoD. If he chooses Sen. Warren as his running mate and, like FDR, orders the VP to find out where $100 Billion a year for 2 decades on average, has been liberated from the gov'ts books, he could cut even more. " Smilen Joe " hasn't found it, hasn't looked for it and may be smiling for reasons we'll never know. " You can't handle the truth "; " Smilen Joe speaking to his mirror, every morning for the last 8 years.
Realpolitik has nothing to do with honesty. In fact it actually means something other than the truth... a decision based on what one country wants rather than what is the truth.
Wereflea, I agree with most of your analysis but I differ on Ukraine. Bernie it seems to me is taking the easy way out on this one. I am following Ukraine like nothing I have followed since I was drafted during the Vietnam War, and Putin is the statesman here. The Obama Administration's treatment of Putin, on a personal level, is a disgrace to the history of American diplomacy. Experts such as professor Stephen Cohen, who I listen to every tuesday evening, Pepe Escobar, and Robert Parry, to name a few, all have done yeoman work on this crisis. No, I think Bernie is wrong on Ukraine, that does not mean that I cease being a strong supporter of his.
"...For Their Benefit"
The only class of people that benefits from war, any war, is the global oligarchy ... the ruling class. The common (working) class are the ones who bear the financial cost, broken families, disabilities and death.
"Let Them Do It Not Us"
This illustrates American exceptionalism in its purist form. Let others do the fighting while the oligarchy class and war profiteers (especially those in the U.S.) reap the grotesquely inflated financial rewards. After all, the lives of the U.S. allies aren't worth as much as American lives.
This attitude and thinking, also expressed by Senator Sanders, is exactly why socialists cannot and will not support him.
No, you're far from alone, nice post.
Here's one Sanders supporter who hopes Biden enters the race.
Come on in Joe, the water's fine!
There may be a few Sanders supporters in it just because they don't like Hillary, but for the majority of us it's because we support Bernie's policies, integrity and authenticity. Biden isn't going to peel us off from Bernie. So where is his support going to come from?
From Democratic 'moderates' who want to maintain the status quo. Conservative Dems. Dems who don't like talk of a political revolution. Dems who don't think a 'socialist' can win.
Dems who support Hillary now.
So please, encourage Joe to split up the 'moderate' vote.
Come on Joe, Hillary's gotta go,
Clear the path for Bernie.
You are twisting my words to mean something else than what was intended. What is the point of that? If you have something to say then say it yourself and not make it seem like someone else is saying it. I talk about free college "for their benefit"and you make about something totally different. Say it in you own words and not twist mine.I talk about how Sanders wants to extract us from the Middle East by them fighting over there instead of our doing it (15 years and endless war is self explanatory) and you make it what? That we should continue an endless war?
You know what about socialists? I am starting to believe that many of these supposed socialists who claim to be purists are right wing shills who want the discussion to keep saying the word socialist. It's a crock. Suddenly supposed socialists are coming out of the woodwork and by coincidence they aren't going to vote for the socialist because they are really real socialists and he isn't really a socialist's socialist and if he was a socialist then as a socialist he would vote like socialists do about things that the socialist party has stood for ....
Um? ...have I said the word socialist enough for you yet?
Bernie is hardly a socialist despite what the right wing says. He is what is known as a social democrat and independent. Give it a rest.
You too? What position did I write about the Ukraine? Is it really true that people have become dumbed down where subtly is anathema in discussing the issues.
What do you disagree with? Are you saying he isn't presenting a position as part of diplomatic realpolitik? Are you unfamiliar with the term? It is a stance, a chess game, a diplomatic dance a posture more than a fixed [position. It is for the show, two governments presenting a pose in situ for their respective populations and the world at large. (three nations if you include the Ukraine butting in where it concerns them - sarcasm intended).
Would you mind explaining what you mean exactly as to Obama's treatment of Putin? Putin is the statesman? Why is that? Is it because we (typically) support some unsavory elements in Ukraine? Putin is quite willing to nibble away and maybe reabsorb. I understand what Putin is doing but saying that he is the statesman here is saying Peter the Great just wanted to help the Ukrainians by taking the Ukraine from the Cossacks.
Don't lecture me and ask me if I know what real politic is, and your use of it here makes no sense to me. Here is one example: https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/25/obamas-flak-demeans-putins-posture/ Or, http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2013/08/10/obama-personally-insults-putin
Parry on NYT coverage:
"The demonizing of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin appears to know no bounds, with the White House and The New York Times going out of their way to mock his request for a meeting with President Barack Obama and then ladling on insults about Putin’s looks and posture
Indeed, what is perhaps most remarkable about the Times publishing an article bristling with such crude insults toward a world leader is that it almost passes without notice these days in Official Washington. One can only hope that Putin has an extraordinarily thick skin and doesn’t stoop to the level of the White House – and the Times – in dishing back insults about Obama and America’s newspaper of record".
Remember the Vickie Nuland affair, from another Parry article: https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/01/ukraine-rightists-kill-police-putin-blamed/
"And, the evidence is even clearer that U.S. government operatives, particularly Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that overthrew Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych. Indeed, journalists knew more about the coup-plotting in Ukraine in real-time than we did about the coups in Iran and Guatemala six decades ago.
In the Ukraine case, there was even an intercepted phone call just weeks before the Feb. 22, 2014 coup revealing Nuland handpicking the new Ukrainian leaders – “Yats is the guy,” she said referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who would become the post-coup prime minister – as Pyatt pondered how “to midwife this thing” and Nuland dismissed the European Union’s less aggressive approach with the pithy remark, “Fuck the EU!”"
I could look up many examples of Obama, and or his representatives or spokespeople, being an embarrassment to this country diplomatically. He surely isn't playing the real politic game adroitly. And Putin has not answered back in kind with insults.
It was Putin who along with the German Chancellor and the French President arranged the Minsk accords, in an attempt to resolve the crisis. America was not a party, nor did the U. S. indicate it wanted to be a party. Putin and the others were taking practical real politic actions to somehow resolve the crisis.
Not to mention Kerry's jumping to the conclusion that it was Russia, or Russian supporters who shot down the Malaysian plane, Parry's sources point to rogue elements in Kiev. I could go on and on.
Listening to Prof. Cohen is a sophisticated lesson in real politic from a Russian specialist point of view.
I don't get your point? I said it is for show. That includes our posturing (or presenting the idea of us being hostile towards Putin) and the 'announced' rudeness.
For all we know both leaders are sitting around throwing back a few beers together while putting up a good front for their respective medias. I don't believe the hype, Obama's rude boy scenario with ICBMs being the rattling sabers. I just don't believe it. So what happened to the war over the Ukraine? It became the war in Syria? All I see is neocon destabilization of the middle east continuing and who is doing what to whom now? Let me know when the musical chairs stop. Is Putin helping or hurting there... it looks iffy doesn't it.
I am quite willing to say I am using the term wrong but in any case - I hope I have clarified my intent which was to suggest that the show for the media overlays the real positions and like I said... the positions of both governments counterbalance each other.
Biden is a demagogue that will do and say anything to be President.
It is clear that Sanders has a very quiet foreign policy,and by this he talks about coalitions and being strong and vigilant. He is not professing a revolution beyond our boarders. And this is why Sanders is being taken seriously. And I appreciate that Sanders is a real conservative when it comes to foreign policy. We and other nations have been screwing up the world since WWI(and of course if its viewed thru the lens of a Capitalist Imperialist it makes total sense.) and its very complicated to untangle the many knots created.------ The first step in changing our foreign policy would be getting real information about the world and different cultures. And I do give Democracy Now high marks in this area. The contrast with main stream media is glaring. And the Palestine conflict is the perfect example. Many many years ago I could not understand the reporting on Palestine,and why didn't we get a history of this conflict. This was my first realization that there is something fundamentally wrong with the media in this country.
The US media cannot be trusted or believed - we almost never get the whole truth on issues, the Ukraine conflict is one. The West expanded into Ukraine when they pledged not to at the demise of the Soviet Union - that was perceived as a direct threat to Russia from NATO via the Ukraine. Russia's annexation of the Crimea was defensible given its history and Ukraines actions supported by the West. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18287223
I am not defending Putins actions or any war crime by either side, only that it is a complicated issue with more than meets the eye.
Comments that challenge anothers position without any supporting evidence/informed opinion pieces, doesn't answer questions or inform. Sanders has far more integrity and moral compass than any alternatives, including "Smiley Joe". Sanders has articulated many positions many can support and I believe he would enlarge on issues you mention. Where is it written what you suggest as fact Jimmy? Here are a couple of pieces on military spending......
"some of Mr. Sanders's policy prescriptions -- including far higher taxes on the wealthy and deep military spending cuts -- may eventually persuade Democrats that he is unelectable in a general election." - The final story has not been written on 'electability, for Sanders or anyone else, even given our duopoly political system of corruption.....Look at trudeau and his win....
"Sanders railed against the Vietnam War. He voted against invading Iraq — both times. He wants to cut the defense budget.
(Sanders) might not be a friend to the military, but many veterans believe he’s gone to war for them. And that’s why they’re out there cheering for a socialist"