Since her secret meeting with the progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren last year, Hillary Clinton as suspiciously "adopted" many progressive stands on issues that before (as First Lady, New York Senator and Obama's Secretary of State), she was previously against — such as her flip-flop on the TPP trade deal and the Keystone pipeline — major issues that she now says she "evolved" on — issues that Senator Bernie Sanders has always stood firmly on.
And since Sanders announced his run for President, Hillary Clinton has also "adopted" many of the same issues that Bernie Sanders as always advocated for — and why the CNN moderator Anderson Cooper had bluntly asked her during the first Democratic debate:
Plenty of politicians evolve on issues, but even some Democrats believe you change your positions based on political expediency. You were against same-sex marriage. Now you’re for it. You defended President Obama’s immigration policies. Now you say they’re too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the “gold standard”. Now, suddenly, last week, you’re against it. Will you say anything to get elected?
So it's mind-boggling that, despite the fact all polls show most people don't trust her, all the corporate-sponsored national polls (via Real Clear Politics and the HuffPo Pollster) shows Hillary Clinton constantly leading Bernie Sanders. Why? If Democratic voters would vote for someone they don't trust, they might as well vote for a Republican — or a Marxist or a Socialist — that they can trust.
In his book "Dreams from my Father" President Obama wrote: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."
It turns out, Obama was a sellout — he couldn't be trusted. There is nothing Socialist, Marxist or even Progressive about his Presidency. He turned out to be just another pro-corporate "moderate" Democrat. Period. The TPP trade deal is only one of many examples. Obama talked the talk by invoking FDR and Teddy Roosevelt (progressives) in his earlier speeches, but he never walked the walk of a truly progressive politician.
So it's odd that for the past 7+ years, after being elected twice to be our President (when he was once accused of being a Manchurian Candidate) Obama is still being accused of being a Socialist or Marxist — while the pro-Hillary camp is constantly trying to convince us that Obama and she share progressive values (although it's Bernie Sanders who's really more like FDR).
Meanwhile, since Obama first took office in January 2009, the stock market is up 120% (over doubling in value since the March 2009 lows) during his 7+ years in office — and hitting many all-time record highs since early 2013. So if he's not a genuine card-carrying (crony) capitalist, then Obama makes for a very lousy Socialist. Increasing food stamps during the Great Recession doesn't make him Joe Stalin; but it seems that bailing out the banks and letting all the CEOs escape prison time (among many other things) would make Obama a capitalist on steroids.
And as corporations have been making all-time record high profits — so has CEO pay soared into the stratosphere — all while wages continue to remain stagnant — just like they've been for the past 40 years (under both "moderate" Republican and Democratic administrations). And so then, why have many of the super-rich capitalists and their political parties been complaining? And why do many conservatives still call him a "Socialist" when he (and Hillary) are really Republican-LITES?
For a supposedly "Marxist/Socialist", Obama didn't bring down the U.S. economy (for the super rich) — especially when compared to what happened during George W. Bush's time in office. So as a socialist-LITE (a democratic socialist), what would Senator Bernie Sanders do with a Republican-dominated Congress to destroy the U.S. economy? Answer: Not a frickin thing. It's all just Republican establishment fear-mongering to get another "moderate" Republican President (like Jeb!) back in the White House.
But what's worse is, establishment Democrats are also using the "Socialist" moniker to fear-monger to keep the "moderates" firmly in control of their party too — to keep true progressives from becoming a majority in the party and to get Hillary Clinton elected — rather than Bernie Sanders, a progressive who co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus (Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren aren't listed as members).
As an example, Senator Claire McCaskill (a "moderate" Democrat from Missouri) said Bernie Sanders was too liberal. Was FDR too liberal? He won 4 straight presidential elections by a landslide. McCaskill, who is one of 13 Democratic Senators who gave Obama fast track for trade deals that would offshore more jobs, had complained that the media was being too nice to Senator Bernie Sanders because they weren't calling him a "socialist" often enough. (McCaskill must not read or watch the news very much, because Sanders' political leanings as a "Democratic Socialist" or "Socialist" is often mentioned by the media and has been well known.)
Bernie, who himself has never personally attacked Hillary Clinton or Claire McCaskill, said, “This is the first time I’ve had a colleague attack me. You’ll have to ask Senator McCaskill why.” Claire McCaskill was one of Hillary's first supporters to run for president (maybe because she wants a job in the White House — or as Secretary of State, or as an ambassador — if Clinton is elected. They are all politically ambitious and care ZIP about regular working people.)
Why is "democratic progressivism" (aka "democratic socialism") always associated with the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", when Russia's political philosophy of Marxism–Leninism was once the base of their Communist Party? Comparing Bernie Sanders to Joe Stalin is comparing apples and oranges.
The Democratic base (the DNC machine, delegates, etc.) has been using the Republican's strategy of fear-monger to retain their "moderate" stranglehold on the Democratic party. The media is complicit in this, because they too would prefer a "moderate" or "Republican LITE" — such as Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.
Both our political parties are corrupt and that's why Senator Bernie Sanders says we need a political revolution. But the Republicans and the Democrats have absolute power — and will do ANYTHING to maintain that power — and that's why "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The U.S. — as a country — may be the richest in the world, but most of the wealth has been redistributed to the top 1 percent since 1979 (not stolen from the rich and given to the poor), because "moderate" Democrats (just like the Republicans) will continue this trend — just like they always have. We need to redistribute more of the profits back to the workers who actually create all the wealth, not just to those who manipulate the market with offshoring, union busting, voter suppression laws, wage theft, tax avoidance, corporate inversions, lobbying, campaign contributions, merger-and-acquisitions and stock buy-backs.
Maybe it is time that we have Socialists and Marxists (and not fake progressives) in government, because capitalism of the 1950s and 60s has been corrupted to benefit the very few in the late 20th and early 21st century, when most American workers haven't benefited near as proportionately as their corporate paymasters. But the political elites in both parties (including the media) will never allow that happen. They will always use fear-mongering / propaganda to scare people into voting against their own best interests — often using social and race issues in their "divide-and-conquer" strategy to maintain their political power.
Prediction for 2016: If Hillary is nominated over Bernie to be the Democratic nominee, less Republicans will vote for her than Bernie if Republican voters aren't satisfied with their own Republican nominee. And less Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary than would Hillary voters vote for Bernie, because they would fear any Republican President. But the Democratic party machine (DNC, delegates and super-delegates) will vote against the popular vote during the primaries and nominate Hillary (thinking she's more "electable"), and we may end up with a Republican in the White House with Republican majorities in both the House and Senate in Congress...all because the "moderate" Democrats refused to relinquish their power to a true progressive Democratic nominee. Or we may have to (once again) swallow that bitter pill and vote for the lessor of two evils. (I think Bernie should just run as an Independent if it looks as though this scenario plays out.)
Bonus video: Julianna Forlano, fact-checking the Koch Brothers on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"