![\"Bernie](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.occasionalplanet.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/bernie_sanders8-620x412.jpg\")
<\/a>First off, let me be clear. I’m voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary and I hope he wins the nomination. If he doesn’t I will vote for Hillary Clinton. I’m choosing\u00a0Bernie not just because my political views are closer to his, they are, but because I think he has the best chance of winning in November.<\/p>\nThat said,\u00a0I have some\u00a0problems with Bernie Sanders. \u00a0My greatest criticism is that he\u2019s a faux Democratic Socialist. No real Democratic Socialist would vote, as he has time and again, to continue the U.S. imperialist wars in the Middle East and the Ukraine. His foreign policy views are slightly better than Clinton\u2019s, and he is less of an outright warmonger, but he is a huge disappointment to me on that front. Bernie can\u2019t call for a \u201crevolution\u201d and ignore the link between our vast imperialist military\/intelligence state and the problems we are facing at home. They are profoundly connected. Even though this is a big issue\u00a0for me, I’m still voting for him, and I will explain the many reasons why. Before I get to them,\u00a0there are other things about Bernie that I’m not thrilled about.<\/p>\n
Bernie\u2019s deals with the Devil<\/h2>\n
As an Independent from Vermont, Bernie\u2019s deals with the Democratic Party have somewhat muzzled his progressive voice. I’ll give you an example. Although to his credit, he did, rather brilliantly, force Republicans to add funding for community health centers to the Affordable Care Act, he did not push hard enough for the \u201cpublic option.\u201d Bernie had a lot of influence because he sat on the committee that\u00a0wrote\u00a0the bill.<\/p>\n
He\u2019s been terrible on guns, primarily to garner\u00a0votes from gun-owning Democrats, Independents and Republicans in his home state of Vermont.<\/p>\n
Because of his deal with the Democratic Party to not run candidates against him in exchange for his caucusing with Democrats, he has diminished\u00a0his ability to be critical of the Party.<\/p>\n
Countering Bernie criticism from the Left<\/h2>\n
There\u2019s no shortage of criticism of Bernie by writers on the Left. People\u00a0I admire, like Paul Street and Chris Hedges, consider Bernie a\u00a0socialist\u00a0sellout. They support Green Party candidate Jill Stein. I too would prefer to vote for her, but the stakes are too high. I don’t want a Republican in the White House.<\/p>\n
For better or worse, Bernie\u2019s imperfect deals with Democrats, which the Left despises and considers a deep character flaw, have allowed him to \u201cget shit done\u201d as Hillary supporters like to claim. In fact, Bernie has way more legislative success to his credit than Hillary, precisely because he\u2019s a very skilled dealmaker. When he was in the House, he was called the \u201cAmendment King,\u201d because he improved not-so-great bills by introducing progressive amendments. Bernie is not as ideologically or politically \u201cpure\u201d as the Left or I would like, but he has been consistently effective, nonetheless, in passing bills that help ordinary Americans.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s the money, stupid<\/h2>\n
Bernie is remarkably clean when it comes to special interest money. He takes campaign donations from unions, but not banks and big corporations. And he has not benefited personally from holding elected office. After being in public office for 34 years (including time as mayor of Burlington, VT), his net worth is around $400,000. The Clintons left the White House broke, but managed to make $230 million over the next 14 years from speaking engagements, book deals, and consulting gigs.<\/a><\/p>\n If Hillary is nominated and elected president, her indebtedness to powerful special interests will leave her hamstrung when it comes to \u201cgetting shit done\u201d for the American people. Hillary is very \u201cexperienced\u201d at simultaneously dog-whistling to her donors as she tells voters she is \u201cfighting for them.\u201d She did that very artfully during the last debate when talking about the TPP trade agreement.<\/p>\n My point is that the influence of Big Money is devastating. This is the main reason Bernie keeps harping on it. Big Money produces watered down bills like the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank that are touted as the best thing since sliced bread\u2014or the Depression\u2014take your pick. Worse, Big Money siphons off trillions for wars that benefit its interests. For good reason, people feel shafted. No wonder they are looking for a non-establishment candidate\u2014someone who is not drowning in campaign donations and speaking fees from banks and corporations. Those who are looking for a scapegoat choose fascist candidate Donald Trump, Those who want a government more responsive to their needs choose Bernie Sanders.<\/p>\n If elected president, Bernie will not be afraid to mobilize the electorate behind initiatives that challenge big money, because he has no skin in the game. He has no one to appease on Wall Street. He doesn\u2019t have to suck up to Lloyd Blankfein to get reelected. That\u2019s precisely why Blankfein called him \u201cdangerous.\u201d<\/p>\n If Bernie keeps winning the primaries, he will continue to energize and turn out a previously disaffected voter base\u2014a broad spectrum of young Democrats, Independents and some Republicans. Unlike Hillary, he will insure a huge voter turnout in November, giving him the possibility of flipping the House and Senate.<\/p>\n As Bernie\u2019s campaign manager confirmed in a recent interview, the plan is to bring progressive candidates on board to challenge Republicans down ticket. If Elizabeth Warren is his running mate, he will not only win, he could\u00a0shut down Republicans for a decade. If she isn\u2019t on the ticket, he still has a very good chance of winning the presidency and achieving a Democratic victory in the House and Senate\u2014an advantage he will not squander. The road will be steep to take back the House and Senate, but only Bernie has a chance to achieve this.<\/p>\n Bernie Sander\u2019s record-breaking victory in New Hampshire exposed how out-of-sync the Clinton machine is with the times. Hillary lost because she based her campaign on the playbook of a fading, and out-of-touch Democratic establishment\u2014one that has fought to deny Democratic voters a choice, and make her nomination a coronation.<\/p>\n Hillary figured women would vote for her simply because she was a woman. She figured college grads and wealthier Democrats would vote for her because her more \u201cpragmatic\u201d policies wouldn\u2019t seriously challenge the status quo. She figured Bernie Sanders was not a real threat, and that she was the inevitable candidate\u2014all fatal assumptions by an out-of-touch campaign.<\/p>\n Not surprising, in New Hampshire she won those 65 or older with incomes over $200,000, but she lost everyone else\u2014women, men, people under 30, college grads, blue-collar workers. She lost both liberals and moderates. Hillary and the Democratic establishment backing her were so focused on big money and power players they missed the seismic shift happening under their feet. They ignored, for example, the public\u2019s enthusiasm for populist icon Elizabeth Warren, the only woman senator yet to endorse Hillary Clinton.<\/p>\n In a speech from the senate floor on the sixth anniversary of Citizens United<\/a>, Warren\u00a0said:<\/p>\n A new presidential election is upon us. The first votes will be cast in Iowa in just eleven days. Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run this country like some private club.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wonder who she was talking about?<\/p>\n If Hillary wins the nomination, even with Bernie\u2019s promised endorsement, she doesn\u2019t have the skills to reunite the party. That said, because of a GOP in disarray, Hillary could still win in November, but not by much, because voter turnout could be diminished. Therein lies the danger. Throw in that her unfavorable rating is quite high, and Democrats could lose. And, because turnout will be lackluster, she will not be able to change the Republican grip on the House and Senate.<\/p>\n A good way to\u00a0judge a president is by the people he or she chooses as advisors and cabinet members. If Hillary gets elected, she will bring into her administration the same old corporate\/Wall Street cronies that were there under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. In contrast, Bernie has suggested people like Robert Reich,<\/a> Elizabeth Warren and progressive economist Joseph Stiglitz. He has said on CNN\u2019s State of the Union that his administration would include \u201cgreat public servants<\/em> who, for years, have been standing up for the middle class and the working families of this country.\u201d<\/p>\n Hillary may have more \u201cexperience\u201d in holding powerful positions, but her judgment in her various roles has been deeply flawed and compromised, and at times,\u00a0atrocious. I don\u2019t expect her judgment to be any better as president. I also cringe at the idea of Bill and Hillary being back in the White House. Something about this feels terribly\u00a0wrong. A democracy should not have ruling dynasties, backed by massive amounts of corporate\/oligarch money, moving in and out of the White House.<\/p>\nBernie can flip the House and Senate, Hillary can\u2019t<\/h2>\n
Clinton campaign dated and out-of-touch<\/h2>\n
If Hillary wins the nomination, she won\u2019t bring the party together<\/h2>\n
Bernie has the wisdom and judgment to be president<\/h2>\n