All Eyes On Iowa Tomorrow

We're backing Bernie Sanders at this blog and we urge you to caucus for him tomorrow if you live in Iowa and to contribute what you can to his campaign and to the campaigns of the congressional candidates who have endorsed him and who are running on his progressive platform. As you know, Hillary and her team are campaigning ferociously-- and very negatively-- to win Iowa's caucuses. Let me remind Iowans that in 2012, she privately said the caucus process favors "parties' extremes" (a disparaging way of describing progressives) over moderates (Beltway talk for "conservatives"), which she certainly considers herself.

Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist, H.A. Goodman, described why this election isn't just another crap shoot between a horrid Republican and a somewhat less horrid Democrat. For those of us who weren't alive when FDR was running, Bernie is a once in a lifetime candidate.

While Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump compete to sound more hawkish, only Bernie Sanders says, "I'll be damned if kids in the state of Vermont-- or taxpayers in the state of Vermont-- have to defend the royal Saudi family, which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars."

When people like Paul Krugman evaluate Bernie Sanders and Clinton, the feasibility of a single-payer program is scrutinized, but money spent funding perpetual wars never seems to be evaluated. In terms of interest alone for both Iraq and Afghanistan, Brown University's Cost of War

states, "By 2054, interest costs will themselves be at least $7.9 trillion unless the US changes the way that it pays for the wars."

Remember the war tax you paid to fund Iraq? Of course not.

Many of today's threats to U.S. national security stem from the Bush Administration, and the Democrats who sided with these neocons. Unlike Clinton, who views her Iraq Vote as simply a "mistake," Bernie Sanders possessed enough wisdom to evaluate the same intelligence Clinton now blames for her mistake.

One look at what Bernie Sanders warned in 2002 illustrates his unique status among American politicians. Here's his speech opposing the Iraq War, and ask yourself how much of today's world Sanders was able to foresee:

Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution.

One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed...

Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences.

Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country?

Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists?

Did Hillary Clinton possess the wisdom of Bernie Sanders, at a time America needed a leading Democrat to counter the neocons in Bush's administration?

Clinton might be "wicked smart," like President Obama states, but Bernie Sanders possesses wisdom. Wisdom and intelligence are different, and if you confuse the two, you're stuck with an endless stream of politicians like Hillary Clinton. With Bernie Sanders, America will get someone who makes decisions based upon principle and value system, not political expediency and evolution.

There's a reason The Economist ran a cover with the words, "What does Hillary stand for?"

If you've been in the spotlight for decades, yet people don't know what you stand for, then you might be "wicked smart," but your intelligence doesn't correlate to wisdom.

Furthermore, if you call an Iraq Vote a mistake, then repeat the mistake by advocating the bombing of Libya, the phrase "smart power" is meaningless. As stated in the New Republic, Benghazi Won't Stick to Hillary Clinton, But the Disastrous Libyan Intervention Should.

Also, if Hillary Clinton has been around forever, yet 59% of voters find her "not honest and trustworthy," then her experience hasn't correlated to effective leadership.

...[H]ow many American politicians do you know who would drive a busload of people in need of affordable medication, into Canada? The following is a C-Span transcript of Bernie Sanders describing his trip across the border in search of medication for his constituents:

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, there is not much I can add to the brilliant remarks made by Senator Dorgan. I think he, in a very comprehensive manner, made clear why the Senate and this country should move to prescription drug reimportation. I think he very ably answered the objections that we know are sure to come and made the case as well as could be made.

My State borders Canada. Some years ago, I put together what, in fact, turns out to be the very first bus trip to take constituents over the Canadian border to buy low-cost prescription drugs.

All of us have days which are transformative where something happens we will never forget, and that is the day I will never forget. On that day we took a busload of Vermonters, mostly women, many of the women struggling with breast cancer. We went from St. Albans, VT, to Montreal, Canada.

I will never forget the look on the faces of those women who were struggling for their lives when they bought breast cancer medicine at 10 percent of the cost they were paying in the State of Vermont.

The question is a very simple question: How do you have a drug manufactured by a company, manufactured in the same factory, put in the same bottles, sold in Canada, in some cases for one-tenth the price that same medicine is sold in the United States of America? How possibly can that happen?

Could you possibly imagine Clinton or Trump driving cancer patients across the border, in search of more affordable medication?

The time is now. Today, not tomorrow.

Save the cynicism for never-ending wars, not single-payer healthcare.

Will you ever see another statesman like Bernie Sanders in your lifetime?

Bernie Sanders is a once in a lifetime presidential candidate and I explain why I'm only voting for Sanders in this YouTube segment. I explain why Bernie Sanders will achieve a dominant victory to become president in my recent appearance on the David Pakman Show. There's a reason Donald Trump donated money to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, and it's the same reason I'm only voting for Bernie Sanders in 2016. Herr Trumpf contributed to Hillary. Will you contribute to Bernie?

Today, the Quad-City Times, one of the most important media outlets for Iowa Democrats, endorsed Bernie's campaign, pointing out, correctly, that "Americans are tired of the hollow rhetoric" and that only Bernie can shift the party's paradigm. Clinton's greatest strength, they pointed out is also her greatest weakness: "Clinton embodies the status quo."

Few topics are as ripe for debate as the consolidation of wealth and power in the the U.S. among a wealthy few. It's an argument that only Sanders appears to truly appreciate, one that should carry through to November.

Democratic Party leaders know that much of its base is tired with the middling "third way" spearheaded by Clinton's husband, Bill, in the 1990s. Think "with your head instead of your heart," party leaders say, a shot at Sanders' alleged lack of electability, while warily eyeing the polls and a lack of enthusiasm for the anointed candidate. But it's also an acknowledgement that much of the rank-and-file identifies with Sanders' core beliefs. His calls to splinter massive financial institutions, implement truly universal, single-payer health care and provide tuition free college strike to the very heart of Democratic principles.

The party, however, is asking voters to reject their maxims for more of the same.

Then-Sen. Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. Sanders opposed it. She supported the Patriot Act, one of the greatest assaults on civil liberties in the nation's history. Sanders opposed it. She supported the Wall Street bailout. Sanders opposed it. There's a pattern here.

Sanders is correct: Experience and judgment aren't one and the same.

...In 2008, voters rejected Clinton for what they thought was a new era of political discourse. Obama has had his moments, for sure. But his supporters didn't get the new-century paradigm shift they desired. The corporatism persisted. Special interests and the wealthy continue to own Washington. Clinton is incapable of changing that. She's just too plugged in.

If the Democratic Party is to move forward, it must abandon its compromised policy and differentiate itself come November. Only Sanders can accomplish that goal.