Fidel Castro, whom the Republicans could make Bernie Sanders’ running mate
By all reasonable measurements, Bernie Sanders‘ promised “political revolution” has not happened. Probably the two best such measurements — Democratic primary voter turnout, and Sanders’ share of the black and Latino primary vote — vividly demonstrate this. Instead, however, another type of revolution was associated with Bernie Sanders this week: Fidel Castro‘s revolution in Cuba.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
It is said that voters vote with their hearts in the primaries and with their heads in the general election. However, the death of right wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at age 79 might cut that process short. In particular, in the Democratic primaries, Scalia’s death may focus voters’ attention on using their heads and strategy, which may be more associated with Hillary Clinton, and less on Clinton’s aspirational competitor, Bernie Sanders. Here are several reasons why:
Volunteers for Hillary Clinton in Des Moines, Iowa
Right now, it’s silly season in politics. The mainstream media, the presidential primary candidates and their campaigns are serving up small shiny objects, and the public is lapping them up. On the Democratic Party side, in the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, these shiny objects range from coin tosses to speaking fees to the definition of a “progressive” to “Berniebros.” But hidden behind these superficial stories is some cold hard math involving delegates and demographics.
Donald Trump after giving “concession” speech at Iowa Caucus
Last night’s Iowa Presidential Caucus gave all the front-runners in the Democratic and Republican Parties something to smile about. At least, the Caucus results gave each of the following campaigns something to spin positively about:
President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama after clinching 2008 Democratic presidential nomination
Last night, one week before the Iowa Caucus, CNN hosted a Town Hall event at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, featuring Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. The three candidates showed differences in their views and policies while answering questions from the audience of mostly undecided Democratic voters and from moderator Chris Cuomo. But perhaps more striking was the level of knowledge, substance and forcefulness each candidate exhibited on the issues.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a show of unity in 2008.
A true realist might not care who wins the 2016 Democratic presidential primary contest, so long as it’s the Democrat who is most likely to defeat the Republican nominee. The prize is winning the White House, and all the advantages that entails, from nominating U.S. Supreme Court justices to conducting foreign policy to pursuing or protecting social agendas on everything from God to guns to gay marriage. We have an ongoing series about the differences between having a Democrat versus a Republican in the White House, and the list is very long. While there are differences between the Democratic candidates, those differences pale in comparison to the Republican candidates. So let’s take a realistic look at the Democratic primary race:
President Obama speaks at the Pentagon last December
President Barack Obama‘s final State of the Union address last night was marked by an optimistic, confident tone in promoting America’s values and its leadership position for the future. In doing so, Obama was reminiscent of two presidents who loom large in our recent history: Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy.
Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire
Hillary Rodham Clinton announced last Sunday that she is running for the Democratic nomination for President in 2016. While Clinton is one of the best-known people in the world, more folks might be familiar with knee-jerk labels used to describe her. In fact, Hillary has a long record of commitment to progressive American values. Here are seven reasons to love Hillary Clinton for President:
Protesters opposing Arizona anti-immigrant law
Republicans and conservatives, which are curently one and the same, love to come up with short, catchy labels for things. Here’s a list of popular Republican political phrases. Those labels and phrases are always loaded, either in favor of the Republicans, against the Democrats, or both. So, if you’re a Democrat, a liberal or a progressive, why would you ever use those Republican labels, making them even more popular so they get taken up by the mainstream media and become part of our vernacular? The answer is, you shouldn’t. But plenty of Democrats, liberals and progressives are making this mistake lately. Here are a few examples of Republican-loaded phrases that Democrats, and thus the mainstream media, are using all over the place. Hopefully, these will serve as a reminder to cut it out:
Ku Klux Klan march across Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL
Last Saturday’s event at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, marking the 50th anniversary of the civil rights marches from Selma to Montgomery, was a jarring reminder of how the Democratic Party has become the party of “Yes” while the Republican Party stands in the way of progress as the party of “No.”
On issue after issue, including voting rights, marriage equality, affordable healthcare, equal pay for women, diplomacy instead of warmongering with Iran, tackling climate change, comprehensive immigration reform, sensible gun safety laws, high-speed trains, stopping police violence, renewable energy and more, the Democrats are the party of “Yes” while the Republicans define themselves by being against these things, and especially, being against whatever President Obama is for. Republicans now pathologically say “no” to things even if, as is the case with the Affordable Care Act, repairing America’s crumbling roads and bridges, and executive action on immigration, Republicans previously (even recently) supported those very things.
follow: RSS