where hypotheses come to die (madman101) wrote,
where hypotheses come to die

Qualified? - Bernie versus Clinton - (Part One)

(This is part three of my Bernie-Trump series) - For Part Two: A POLITICAL REVOLUTION: Bernie - and Trump - Versus the FAUX MIDDLE

In my last post, I said that it was very possible that, when Trump is trounced in a primary, this is advantageous to Bernie, versus Hillary. So, it actually works against Hillary to pretend that she is the main Dem contender, by attacking Trump instead of Bernie, because this may hurt Trump but help Bernie. People see through the disingenuousness; while the rising conspiracy of the New Middle, (from the margins), insists on making itself felt.

So, what can Bernie do, to work with this dynamic? I think he can do two things. First, he should not attack Trump outright. That means he should not call Trump, "a divider," with Bernie and Hillary lumped together as the supposed good-guys. I think, and I think that a lot of frustrated people feel, that Hillary is very much a divider, as exemplified by her underhanded ways of trying to steal the nomination. If it weren't for Bernie's good graces, Hillary would have been waging a spitfire, divisive campaign against him from the beginning.

Instead, Bernie should occasionally point out the similarity on issues between himself and Trump, noting that there is a very broad MAJORITY of Americans who want these same things: Jobs; fair trade; safe food; college education; simplified access to health care; less corruption in government; expanded social security; less dependency from our NATO allies; rational security in dealing with possible terrorist threats; less invasion of government into our privacy and rights; a turn-around on the economy, etc. But, Bernie should add that HE is the better choice for addressing these concerns and demands, if only because government is NOT a business, to be run by a billionaire. To say that he and Trump are on the right side of many issues, without getting into the mud-slinging, will make Sanders look focused and presidential, making Hillary seem like the irrational, unqualified odd-man-out.

It may also be important for Bernie to avoid attacking Trump, because the time may be soon, when Bernie has garnered enough prominence that, should he start acting like a front-runner, the people will turn against him, out of sheer cynicism. Better to let Hillary attempt this dirty work, and suffer the consequences herself.

Second, at the same time, Bernie should undermine Trump covertly, because this is politics with piranha, after all. Even as I write this, NPR is reporting on a flight of some Democrats away from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump, (reminiscent of the Reagan Democrats). Again, when Trump does well, Bernie may not. As Bernie speaks civilly of Trump, Trump will get a bump, and this must be counter-acted. So, Bernie needs to attack Trump, but not publically. There is nothing wrong with doing this, when it is moral. For example, have something damaging about Trump revealed, or have some proxy point out how Trump is not focusing strongly on issues, or on strategies, or how Trump has lived a life of privilege unlike the common folk. And: Is a CEO billionaire really mentally qualified to run a government of the people? Never mind the hot temper.

Bernie has, of course, been doing a LOT of things right. His commercials are a good example of this. His quick come-backs in the news have also been pretty professional. And, of course, he has the right message - he has the truth on his side. It is also interesting that Bernie did hire the George Soros affiliate who had once been involved in Hillary's email management. This makes me think that it is possible that Bernie MIGHT make a covert blow against Hillary on the email issue, as I am arguing that he should make against Trump. So, he may be capable of such.

What has Bernie been doing wrong? What explains the flight of some Dems from Bernie to Trump? I think it is partly his perceived chumminess with Hillary, which he somewhat got past in Thursday's debate, yes? Well, I think a lot of folks simply see Hillary Clinton as deceptive or conniving, in a very Nixon way, and they kinda don't want to see this papered over. Some people also want to see people who know how to fight, which, again, was partly assuaged by Thursday debate.

However, the whole anti-ISIS thing probably resounds of the same-old, same-old, to a lot of people. I think that a lot of people now rightly believe that 9/11 was an "inside job" by the Saudi royal family, and possibly some Israelis, along with rogue USA agents who benefit from the petro-dollar regime.** Likewise, these people see that ISIS, and associated events, have been associated with the same corrupt conspiracies of gun-runners, and oil barons, and regime-changers and government destabilizers, etc. Many people know that ISIS was another USA/allies demon child, and they view the rhetoric against it as just more deception. So, and to me, it sounds like Bernie's anti-ISIS rhetoric is the same old typical PANDERING. It seems that Bernie is inadequately informed on this, or on the meaning of Benghazi, while Trump is ahead of the curve on these things. This is one reason why some praise Trump as, "having balls."

These points make me feel a little sorry for Bernie. They tarnish the more important issues, such as the widening wealth inequality gap, climate change, and world need. I wish he could be brushed up on these more cynical, tedious issues - I wish his foreign policy ideas were not so green or typical. And, even though he has the right economic ideas, I don't feel that he has a comprehensive economic policy concept, or strategy. (But who does? Hillary is just a continuation of the status quo, with some bones thrown to the progressives). I feel, to compensate this latter deficit, Bernie should say more about how he will hire particular experts on economic philosophy and policy, as opposed to a cabinet full of Goldman-Sachs and Fed affiliates. Hopefully, these experts will be opposed to too-big-to-fail Keynesianism, but be very clear PRO-GRASSROOTS KEYNESIANS. Big difference.

Nevertheless, Bernie Sanders remains the most qualified for the presidency. Not only has he been a long-time civil rights advocate, and environmentalist, and pro-active Senator, and mayor, and movie-star, he has had the most critical qualification of all: Good judgment. He does not have email scandals, or international incidents, or Arkansas, or Vince Foster, or Bill Clinton, following him around. Even his wild crazy choice to run for president turned out to be a stroke of genius. I think we could insert here the text of the Oregon Senator who just recently endorsed Bernie Sanders, with his qualifications. “Why I’m Supporting Bernie Sanders” – by Senator Jeff Merkley, NYT April 13 – (or see text below, yay). - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/opinion/why-im-supporting-bernie-sanders.html?

By the way, Bernie is presently taking his, "Roman holiday," visitting the Pope, (although, somehow, NPR reports that the Pope is also in Greece. I guess popes can do that). Well, a lot of people are questioning whether this decision by Bernie Sanders, not only to chum up with this global Commie guy, but to do it right in the middle of the New York primary campaign, is bad judgment. Well, first of all, they have been calling into question Bernie's judgment-sanity all along, and he somehow seems to pull through just fine. Nobody predicted the landslide in Wisconsin, did they? And so forth. And the questioning of Donald Trump's judgment has been even worse, even as he sails forth violating every official campaign norm, collecting more ardent followers like some big magnet attracting shrapnel. So, the rules for outsiders, if not underdogs, are out the window in 2016, and now so-called faux pas may turn out to be majestic arcs of triumph, is only because the cynical public is now itchingly contrarian against the status quo elites and their norms. "Good judgment," in the past, has turned out to be just so much more artifice, so.

I just want to do a retro here. Remember when the Pope was visitting Mexico, in fact, right up against the border of the USA? At the very same time, Donald Trump was campaigning right down next to the border with Mexico. This was strange to begin with. THEN, someone asks the Pope about this guy, Danny Trump or whatever, and how he wants to go slow on immigration. The Pope then gave either a pat, cursive, Catholic answer, or an answer programmed by the global liberal elite, (*laughs to self*), to the tune of, "Well, then, Trump is not a Christian,” (since that is not the absolute Jesus attitude).

Then, Trump pounced on this, like a good maverick politician would. Now, I don't know what was going on here. I will never be able to figure this one out. I don't know if this flub was prearranged or what. I don't know who the Pope was batting for. I don't know if these two characters were coming so close so they could kiss, and then they suddenly spurned each other. What I do know is that the leading Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito died at just about the same time as this, on an informal vacation, right next to the border with Mexico. Whatever that means, IDK. But I am pretty sure of this: And most of you will want to disagree with this: The Justice was knocked off, probably at the behest of Barack Obama. If you want the deeper scoop on this, surely you can friend me.*

OK, I just wanted to mention all that because it is very weird. However, it does splice back into the current theme of "GOOD JUDGMENT." Because this: Many would have said that it was really bad judgment for Trump to shout out against the Pope. But it didn't hurt him in the slightest, even though, WHO KNOWS, the whole thing might have been an attempted trap by the, "global left." Anyway, here now is Bernie Sanders not pecking away at the Pope, but buddying up to him, and, do you really think this opportunity is going to fall flat on its face, in 2016? I don't think so.

For one thing, although NYC holds the most Jews than pretty much anywhere, Bernie isn't going to alienate those people by buddying up to the Catholic Pope. Why? Because he's already Jewish. Because he's already Brooklyn. Because Pope Francis is EXACTLY what he has been talking about! I think a visit by Bernie to Pope Francis is not bad judgment, and I don't think it is simply typical strategic counselling that Bernie, "needs to do a foreign-policy trip" - I think it is a marriage made in heaven.

I think it is commendable and consistent that Bernie went to visit this ultra-progressive Pope, whom I happen to adore. And what comes out of Bernie's mouth when he is in Rome, "I am so happy to be here, among so many people of like mind, who want to work towards a moral economy," (paraphrase). This was not a planned soundbite. This is something that Bernie believes in, and it, frankly, makes me swell up with pride.

But what about the political ramifications of this daringly bad judgment? Well, don't be so quick to write off the genius. There are a lot of Catholics in New York, as well as a lot of progressives who really know and GET this Pope. Remember our discussion on the flight of some Dems from Bernie to trump? Well, these people are indeed ACTING like Reagan Democrats, who were largely Catholic, and so it is possible that these people today may also be largely Catholic, right? What better way to win them back? - Especially at a time Trump is floundering. Whether or not this hypothesis is true, Bernie is certainly endearing himself to a vast audience of true New York progressives, who are hip and in the know. The Pope's visit to the East Coast last year was a BIG DEAL, not soon forgotten by moral or progressive people! Indeed, his visit was enough to animate both Joe Biden, (who has spoken well of Bernie), and John Boner. These were real, strong and durable influences, which Bernie is tapping into. So much for bad judgment.

Good judgment = QUALIFIED. Both of these men have worked for decades for the advancement of the poor and marginalised, and have outspokenly opposed the ravishes of BIG CORPORATIONS and of BIG GOVERNMENT. [Note: is it possible that the Pope - (and even Bernie) - is part of a large, left-wing conspiracy? Ha, ha - YES. It is. It is possible...}}}..... - - - Why?

Because so long as there are global, corporate, right-wing conspiracies, there will be left-wing conspiracies, often of noble people, to counteract them - AND VICE VERSA. So there. I know there is a blasphemous right-wing conspiracy within the Vatican, but also getting out through global media, to oppose this Pope, which is yet one more thorn in the Pope's crown.

But, just remember, it is the right-wing conspiracies which the left sees as creating all the problems; while it is the left-wing conspiracies which the right sees as creating all the problems. The fact is that we need to dissolve and resolve these differences, because it is the "higher" elites, (and I mean that in the drug-induced sense), who are in command of both wings].

The Pope himself has exercised radical, if not great, judgment, in reaching out to to Moslems, and to the Russian Orthodox Church. (Pope Francis has also opposed ISIS, et al, because it has been persecuting Christians, which is true, because ISIS is the Moslem-Brotherhood-Gone-Wild. NEVERTHELESS, THIS RUBS ME A LITTLE THE WRONG WAY).

Where is Hillary Clinton's Roman Holiday? Is it coming next week, since she apes every stance that Bernie makes? And what about Donald Trump? Didn't he already disenfranchise a great swath of commoner Christians when he jumped on the Pope, in the aforementioned melee?? And hey - I think Mario Cuomo was a Catholic, right? (& {MA} Mike Dukakis?) There are a lot of frickin Catholics in frickin NY so yeah.

I think Bernie made a coup de grace here, yo.

I should add, that at the same time Sanders is visitting the Pope, premature-Nobel-Prize-Winner Obama is trying to one-up him by visiting the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia, and then ISIS Turkey, and then it's off to the Queen of England, presumably for the final establishment of his Knighthood, after a good job done, for the global elite. Seriously. If you know much about so-called, "conspiracy theory,” (a derogatory term created by the CIA after JFK's death), then Obama's visits will look highly red-flag to you.**

But, a more measurable point is this: Obama has in his character, and informal policy, the need to one-up every damn person, including Hillary Clinton, who shall be discussed soon enough. Even while Obama is pledged to support Hillary, he still feels the compulsion to one-up her(!) Believe me: This come after a LOT of observation and retrospection. No drugs were taken. Too bad Bernie can NOT run against Obama, much as he would like to, and as much as he certainly should!

That's kinda like Donald Trump, (in a politically correct way).

Speaking of judgment, the latest flub for Hillary Clinton has been her appearance in a "comedy" skit, wherein the term, "CP," is used, (being slang or derogatory for, "coloured people"). There was some coverage in the press, in which Clinton's judgment was called into question, for her choosing to be involved in this skit. But I think I understand why she, (her handlers), did it, although I don't know if the intended effect succeeded or not. I think her intention was to inoculate herself from being seen as a white outside of the black community. With, "CP," being said, she probably meant to be seen as hip, to blacks - as an insider. Plus, in the skit, she tried to safely distance herself from possible blow-back, by having a black person object to the term, to which she responded that the skit was not hers. So, she was probably trying to show herself as a little rough-and-tumble - and that's also kinda like Donald Trump, (in a politically correct way). Everybody's trying to act like Donald Trump these days, especially the Republicans. They will probably all have their own reality shows in a year or two. I wouldn't mind seeing Bernie in his own reality show, but he should be president instead.

However, the skit flub is yet the latest sign of Hillary's miscalculating misjudgment, (see below). But there was not much coverage of this incident on NPR, which didn't air the actual audio until Friday, (April 15). And then, an NPR talker did some commercial mentioning something called, "CG", which she said stood for, "Cautious Guests," (or something like that). Thus, it was as if NPR was trying to take the sting off the Hillary, "CP", flub. This happened when NPR went right back to reporting extensively or favourably on Clinton, etc., as opposed to Sanders, even after doing a show about this perceived bias. For example, there was a long story about Clinton's rally at a black church in New York, which was highly favourable to her, with a black woman reporting that she, essentially, had undergone a religious conversion from the amazing experience.

Backed by large corporations and global foundations who would be in favour of most of Clinton's likely economic policies, and familiar with a long parade of status-quo Dems, I think we can say that, yes, there continues to be a pro-Clinton bias. But, this is their own bad judgment. They have consistently been reading the cards and polls all wrong, all along, for both Sanders and Trump. Even now, one reporter stated, "We all thought that Bernie was in the race mainly to shift Hillary more to the left..." (just like all non-front-runners in the past). "But no. He... He really wants to be PRESIDENT!"

Oh, what a shocker!

It is interesting to watch some people take so long to shake off their status-quo expectations, biases - and allegiances. Hopefully, Clinton's covetted Super-delegates might, themselves, undergo some similar kind of religious conversion, over to Bernie. One can only pray. Since we have no power otherwise.

Hillary Clinton has shown other instances of bad judgment. The most obvious example was her secretive conflation of personal and official emails, (and not getting them mixed up with emails involving the very shady, corporatist Clinton Foundation), by installing a personal server in one of her bathrooms. Despite an FBI, and Obama Justice Department, investigation, she has been given a pass because, um, "lots of people do this." Knowingly, even after the General Petraeus email scandal? Just because everyone is supposedly doing it, doesn't make it right, especially if one expects to become the President of the country.

Then, of course there was Benghazi, and the mis-announcement of some video supposedly involved, and the delay in responsiveness to the crisis, and the outright lying and insult to the families of the victims, and most importantly: The knowledge of, and certain involvement in, the running of weapons and ammunition into Syria and Turkey. If this is the experience that she is so proud of having, then, well, you don't elect people experienced at doing things wrong.

There has been a lot of calculating, rude moves made by Hillary in the pursuit of the presidency. Remember when she brought in Chelsea, and that whole absurd incident? Then, there has been her grabbing of the Super-delegates so early in the game. There is so much more, I could write a book, but would be too bored by the monotony to continue. She's Nixon all over again. The outspoken and banned friend of Donald Trump, Roger Stone, has written a popular book about the Clintons' dastardly sexcapades, although I have forgotten the title.

Also, a regional talk show host here, who has been pals with Russ Feingold and John Nichols for decades, went into a very nice rant about Hillary Clinton the other day - and callers also called in with examples of her mistakes or misjudgment. This pro-Bernie progressive talker, "Sly," is often very good, and this episode of his show, "The Drive Home With Sly," (WEKZ, WBGR), is worth listening to. (Sly’s POCASTS – The show should appear here soon – it was probably April 13 or 14 http://slypodcasts.podbean.com/ )

He really gets down and dirty, which is not something I have seen from other Progressives or Dems, exclaiming that, "Everything Clinton does is SO CALCULATING." Yes, pretty much. It's even in her voice. I actually feel sorry for her. She is very competent in other ways. But, honestly, if Bernie won't win, I would rather have Trump over Hillary Clinton. Sorry. I will now see if I can dig up that radio show for ya. He also read an editorial by a self-described Feminist, vehemently supporting Clinton, which was really errant or unfounded. Many women, even the likes of Madison Super-delegate, Tammy Baldwin, with vote for Clinton mainly because Clinton is a female. When we all voted for Obama because he was black, what we got was a Goldman-Sachs corporatist, and Neocon, who was nice enough to throw a few bones to the LGBT community, etc., on other more social issues.

But the important issues are precisely the ones Bernie is now emphasizing: Wealth inequality, and all that this entails. Obama and Clinton have all the experience: On the wrong side of these issues! Granted, Hillary is rhetorically pivotting to the left, because of Bernie. But this is precisely where the question of her trustworthiness comes in. She has switched back and forth on free trade in the past. It is likely that she would make more corporatist decisions were she President. In my opinion, this counts Hillary Clinton as highly unqualified.

Saying that she has the experience, and knows how to be practical and, "get things done," through increments and bargaining, largely means that she will defer to the greatest lobbies. I think Bernie has a LOT of experience on NOT caving to the corporations, and instead working for the people. That is where the American game is really at. That is where progress, and money, spring up. Instead, we have a vast right-wing conspiracy of Democrats, including a conspiracy-of-one, Hillary Clinton, who still want to advance the privileges of dysfunctional monopolies, and their greedy and corrupt captains of economic decline.

I say woe!

Say no to this strangling Status Quo!

Well, I had hoped to write more about Hillary; the media; and how there has been collusion between the two parties, and their elites, as there has been between Obama and Hillary in her run for presidency. Unfortunately, circumstance with defer this to some other time, hopefully soon. My next post may also have a lot about the Trump phenomenon, although I am not really sure how much that topic may be suitable in this wonderful Bernie community. So, heads up on this, if possible. OK. Take care!

Oh wait! - I wanted to say this: More advice for Bernie...

I think it would work if Bernie picked up on Cuomo's great theme of the progressive, "New York Idea," which so resembles what Bernie is about. He could mention great folks from the state, like FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Cuomo, etc. He could talk about labour history. He could talk about working together to get huge projects accomplished. So, yeah! I hope someone gets this to him, cuz it could be rousing and effective, yes? Maybe? Oh well, just an idea...

* - Justice Alito was found with a pillow over his head, which was later unreported. His death occurred in an area notorious for corruption and killings. No autopsy was performed as required, even though this person was one of the highest officials in the government. Since his death, several rulings have passed on the Supreme Court which would have otherwise failed were he alive. Whether or not you agree with these rulings, as I tend to agree; and whether or not you liked this guy: this should not cloud one's vision to the probability that he was assassinated. Furthermore, if one studies what has been going on, one will find that this is in no way out of the norm, these days. The only thing that makes it abnormal is that this guy was so high up in the government. But, the coup against JFK occurred way back in 1963, so why should we be surprised? We are still stuck in this ever-running coup, and it has been succeeding because of our egoistical naïveté. Conspiracies exist, call them left or call them right, they tend to benefit the apolitical and anti-moral elites at the top. Those who deny these things tend to be selfishly caught up in the imaginary allegiances of the left-right, push-me pull-you, paradigm.

** - The USA has been in a unique oil relationship with Saudi Arabia since WWII, and went to a full petro-dollar relationship in 1971. This relationship, and associated warrings and destabilisations, strongly affects the value of the USA dollar. The military-industrial complex; the national (in)security state; the anti-privacy network; mercenaries like Blackwater; oil corporations like Haliburton; associated banks, and a vast and loose conspiracy of corrupt government-affiliated, or rogue, "intelligence" agents, running drugs and arms, and inciting violence and assassinations, has definitely sprouted up around this oil relationship with Saudi Arabia over the years, and has become like a thick tangle of vines, choking to death the original tree. Why? The easy money, mainly from taxes. So, it is not only possible, but probable, that agents from the Saudi royal family, (formerly a band of highway bandits), were responsible for 9/11. (It is also likely that several false-flag massacres have since been enacted in order to push certain agendas here). Now, the Obama Administration is considering releasing information from the 9/11 commission report which had previously been redacted - information which will implicate Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 massacre. One reason for this threat may be to thwart Saudi Arabia from switching over to China as an oil partner, thus seriously imperilling the future of the USA dollar, which is backed by nothing else but the confidence behind oil, and the fear behind wars and threats of wars. This comes at a time when Saudi Arabia has gone rogue in overproducing oil, putting USA frackers out of business, threatening the bond market, and further damaging the global economy. So, the reason for this Obama trip to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the Queen's house, will certainly be to discuss these things, as well as the future of ISIS. However, I also have a hunch that another topic will be discussed: "What will the global network of corrupt elite and banks do, should an unwanted candidate like Trump or Sanders win the White House?" (I feel that they want Trump less than they want Bernie, btw). Just as during the days of the crumbling Roman Empire, the threats to the established order came from both without and within.

Why I’m Supporting Bernie Sanders



(woops - no time to wordprocess this....)

NO decision we make as Americans more dramatically affects the direction of our country than our choice for president. He or she is more than the manager of the executive branch, commander in chief or appointer of judges. The president reflects, but also helps define, our national values, priorities and direction.

After considering the biggest challenges facing our nation and the future I want for my children and our country, I have decided to become the first member of the Senate to support my colleague Bernie Sanders for president.

I grew up in working-class Oregon. On a single income, my parents could buy a home, take a vacation and help pay for college. My father worked with his hands as a millwright and built a middle-class life for us.

My parents believed in education and they believed in the United States. When I was young, my father took me to the grade school and told me that if I went through those doors, and worked hard, I could do just about anything because we lived in America. My dad was right.

Years later, my family and I still live in the same working-class community I grew up in. But America has gone off track, and the outlook for the kids growing up there is a lot gloomier today than 40 years ago.

Many middle-class Americans are working longer for less income than decades ago, even while big-ticket expenses like housing, health care and college have relentlessly pushed higher.
It is not that America is less wealthy than 40 years ago — quite the contrary. The problem is that our economy, both by accident and design, has become rigged to make a fortunate few very well off while leaving most Americans struggling to keep up.

And as economic power has become more concentrated, so too has political power. Special interests, aided by their political and judicial allies, have exercised an ever-tighter grip on our political system, from the rise of unlimited, secret campaign spending to a voter suppression movement.

Under President Obama’s leadership, our country is fairer and more prosperous for all than it was seven years ago. But as we look toward the next administration, there is far more work to do. We need urgency. We need big ideas. We need to rethink the status quo.

Unlike the Republican primary circus, Democrats have a choice between two candidates with lifelong track records of fighting for economic opportunity and who are committed to America’s being a force for peace and stability and who are eager to meet today’s challenges and move our country forward for all its citizens, together.

From her time advocating for children as a young lawyer to her work as first lady of Arkansas and the United States, and as a senator and secretary of state, Hillary Clinton has a remarkable record. She would be a strong and capable president.

But Bernie Sanders is boldly and fiercely addressing the biggest challenges facing our country.

He has opposed trade deals with nations that pay their workers as little as a dollar an hour. Such deals have caused good jobs to move overseas and undermined the leverage of American workers to bargain for a fair share of the wealth they create in our remaining factories.

He has passionately advocated for pivoting from fossil fuels to renewable energy to save our planet from global warming — the greatest threat facing humanity. He recognizes that to accomplish this we must keep the vast bulk of the world’s fossil fuels in the ground.

Bernie is a determined leader in taking on the concentration of campaign cash from the mega-wealthy that is corrupting the vision of opportunity embedded in our Constitution.

And he has been unflinching in taking on predatory lending, as well as the threats to our economy from high-risk strategies at our biggest banks.

It has been noted that Bernie has an uphill battle ahead of him to win the Democratic nomination. But his leadership on these issues and his willingness to fearlessly stand up to the powers that be have galvanized a grass-roots movement. People know that we don’t just need better policies, we need a wholesale rethinking of how our economy and our politics work, and for whom they work.

The first three words of the Constitution, in bold script, are “We the People.” The American story is a journey of continuous striving to more fully realize our founding principles of hope and opportunity for all.

It is time to recommit ourselves to that vision of a country that measures our nation’s success not at the boardroom table, but at kitchen tables across America. Bernie Sanders stands for that America, and so I stand with Bernie Sanders for president.

Jeff Merkley is a Democratic senator from Oregon.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 13, 2016, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Why I’m Supporting Bernie. Today's
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded