Clinton vs. Obama & Sanders on Iraq War

Here is a fascinating 5 minute video of both then-Senator Barack Obama and Senator Bernie Sanders debating Hillary Clinton on the war in Iraq in 2008 and 2016. Today President Obama and Hillary Clinton are allies in defeating Senator Bernie Sanders. Did Obama really change that much since 2008 — or was he being disingenuous at the time? Because Hillary sounds the same, and she even provoked Obama into calling her essentially a liar twice. But Bernie has been the same all his life. Fascinating!

But here's what everyone should be aware of — especially those who haven't voted yet and Bernie Sanders' supporters . . .

Senator Bernie Sanders recently told supporters that he has “an extremely good chance” to win nearly every state that votes in the coming month, starting with Arizona, Idaho and Utah next Tuesday. He reiterated that he has no intention of getting out of the race before the Democratic convention in July. “Why would you not allow half the people to vote? That is outrageously undemocratic.”

Here's Rep. Alan Grayson in an op-ed at the Huffington Post: Presidential Primary 2.0 is About to Begin — "This one may come down to the wire. Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a wild ride!

As an aside: In the last 50 years, no Democratic presidential candidate has ever won Kansas and lost the nomination. On March 5, Sanders won Kansas by a landslide.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton may act like they have their parties’ nominations sewed up, but both may find their paths to the White House unraveling on June 7th — Clinton currently has 1,139 delegates to Sanders’ 825 delegates — but 2,383 delegates are required to win the Democratic nomination. The 712 "super-delegates" are not irrevocably pledged to Clinton; they are allowed to change their minds. Democrats haven’t had a brokered convention since 1952. Will they have one in 2016? Or will delegate-rich California push Bernie Sanders past Hillary Clinton? [It should be very interesting in July if both political parties have contested conventions ... it would also be historical.]

The Democrats, including President Obama (who claims he is neutral) have a new strategy for beating Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, but it might not work:

• President Obama said of Clinton in April 2015, "She is my friend. She would make an excellent president."
• Former White House press secretary Jay Carney says President Obama wants Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 Democratic nomination because he believes she would most effective as president in carrying forward what he’s achieved. (Even though Hillary used to say all the time that she wasn’t running for Obama’s third term. Now she openly says she will carry on with his policies. Does that also mean the TPP trade deal, which is one of Obama’s favorite policies?)
• Just recently, Obama Privately Tells Donors That Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary Clinton
• Then come the denials: White House: Obama Still Neutral in Democratic Primary Battle. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday pushed back on a New York Times report and told reporters that Obama "did not indicate or specify a preference in the race."

Oh really? Then why hasn't Obama PUBLICLY STATED on national TV in a press conference (and in a sincere and convincing way) his neutrality in the race? Because he can’t. Either way he will isolate Hillary’s supporters or Bernie’s supporters. But all the signs show that he does in fact support Hillary Clinton. That’s what was so fascinating about the video at the top of this post. When Obama ran in 2008, he sounded more like the type of person who would have supported Bernie Sanders in 2016.

So why are the Democrats declaring Bernie Sanders’ campaign dead? Simple. The establishment doesn't want change — so they want Hillary.

The major corporate media is complicit in attempting to rig influence the elections . . .

Paul Krugman won a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Krugman praised Bill Clinton's economic plan. The New York Times columnist (who today praises Hillary Clinton, who supported NAFTA, PNTR for China — and 45 times for the TPP trade deal) once made his name by ridiculing critics of globalization. Now he admits that “free-trade” cheerleading was mostly garbage. (Also read this scathing post at Salon).

The major media supports the TPP trade deal. Cable news host Ed Schultz was fired from his MSNBC gig the very next day after he fiercely criticized Hillary Clinton for her stanch support of the TPP trade deal (before she "evolved" and now claims to be against it.) The reason? MSNBC is owned by Comcast, whose VP hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and donated to her campaign. In the video below Ed Schultz is with the editor-in-chief of Progressive Magazine: After Bernie Sanders’ bad luck on the third Super Tuesday on March 15th, President Obama told Democratic donors to back Hillary Clinton. In addition, Clinton claimed that Sanders has “a narrow base.” But much of the industrial Midwest, Southwest and West Coast have yet to hit the polls, so how will those states respond to demands they support Clinton?

And here's another example (out of billions!) of how the corporate mainstream media is trying to influence the election to benefit Hillary Clinton: An article by Jennifer Steinhauer at the New York Times (published online) carried the headline "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors." It described the way the Vermont senator had managed a significant number of legislative victories in Congress despite the political independence that might have hindered him. The article stayed in essentially that form for several hours online (with some very minor tweaks); but in the late afternoon, New York Times editors made significant changes to its tone and content, turning it from almost glowing to somewhat disparaging. The later headline read: "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories". The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders’s legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later. (Story here)

Zignal Labs, in cooperation with the Washington Post, writes in their newsletter: "Social media continues to #FeelTheBern, but television is increasingly #ReadyForHillary. Throughout this campaign, our analytics partners at Zignal Labs have seen Sanders grab a disproportionate share of social media traffic, while Clinton receives at least half, if not more, of the television coverage. In the wake of Clinton's five-state sweep on Tuesday, Zignal has only seen her share of TV coverage grow (as Sanders' declines), while social media continues to show enthusiasm for Sanders. [That's because Bernie Sanders is KILLING CLINTON among young voters who are concerned about their futures. But unfortunately for Sanders, while young people go to his rallies, they don't show up to vote in the same numbers that Hillary's older voters do. Maybe it's their work schedules? That's why there should be paid holidays for voting.]

And in other Bernie News . . .

Onetime American Idol runner-up and fan favorite Clay Aiken just endorsed Bernie Sanders and said: "Senator Sanders has stood firm in the face of what has seemed like certain defeat many times before — from protesting for civil rights to the filibustering Bush tax cut extension — because he recognizes that sometimes the first step toward making a difference is making a point.”

Naomi Klein, the famed best-selling author of The Shock Doctrine and This Changes Everything, does not trust Hillary Clinton on climate. The author and journalist also says Bernie Sanders is a "significantly" better US Democratic presidential candidate.

New York Post: The ambitious Democrat who can make Trump University explode -- “The conventional wisdom is that FBI Director James Comey is the real political kingmaker in the presidential election because he’s investigating the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s email. But betting on President Obama’s handpicked FBI chief to indict the president’s preferred successor seems like a stretch.” [I agree, just like Obama’s hand-picked attorney general Eric Holder didn’t prosecute the bankers. Oh, and Eric Holder endorsed Hillary Clinton, who also said “No bank is too big to fail and no executive is too big to jail” — all while taking their money in campaign donations and for speeches.]

Election Fraud in 2016?

The Suspect Massachusetts 2016 Primary: In the Massachusetts March 1, 2016 primary Democratic Party race, the computerized vote count declared candidate Clinton the winner — but the exit polls indicated candidate Sanders to be the winner by a margin of 6.6% [Of course, it didn't help that Senator Elizabeth Warren didn't endorse Bernie (but praised Hillary) — or that the superdelegate Bill Clinton was telling voters at the polls to vote for his wife. >>> A CITP study shows exactly how entire voting systems could be not just rendered inoperable, but deliberately hacked to rig an election. Easy peazy folks! Hacking Democracy in 2016 by HBO

Itty bitty tid-bits everyone should read!

20 years ago they were saying the same thing about Hillary Clinton that they are saying today. January 8, 1996 — New York Times: "Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar." [Bernie Sanders has the highest rating of all the candidates on the issues of trust and honesty. So why would millions of people vote against their own best interests and vote for a person who is a pathological liar? It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.]

A "California for Sanders" FaceBook post (Can this be true? If so, Obama's attorney general, just like with Hillary's emails and the big bankers, won't do a damn thing):

Hillary needed a private server to keep her arms deals with foreign dictators undocumented by the State Department. The huge and expensive FBI based investigation is not a civil suit, but a serious criminal one. Hillary has essentially committed treason on a large scale in order to make huge amounts of money for the Clinton Foundation. Purportedly a charity, only 10% of any monies received by this foundation go towards anything remotely charitable. The rest goes into Clinton pockets. Any day now Hillary will be called to answer a well documented case against her which could, and very well might, result in a criminal indictment. At this point Bernie is our nominee. How she continues to run for president at all beats us. We suspect after all she and Bill have gotten away with (and with Kissinger's bolstering and advice - look what he's gotten away with!), she feels it all laughable. And then there's the question of character and cognitive dissonance.Don't abandon Bernie. He is about to surprise and delight you.