Sanders Creating "The Bernie Effect" On 2016 Race

Bernie Sanders seems a bit too quirky to be a president, so you may need to close your eyes and listen to what he's talking about if his mad scientist look doesn't work for you.  Now that he has entered the presidential race, you can hear clearly what he is talking about so long as you're listening to the words of Hillary.  As it stands, she's doing her best job at avoiding democratic infighting by systematically adopting the policies and plans of its most vocal voices, and currently Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are those voices.

Warren is not running, but
she's impacting the race nonetheless.

Since no one can easily bash Hillary Clinton directly right now, Chuck Todd on Meet The Press did all that he could do in a recent interview to hand Bernie Sanders a stick so he could jump into the ring of Hillary bashing, but Bernie's not having any part of it.

Sanders says that he likes Hillary Clinton and he is desperately hoping that the press would allow them to have a civil discourse without all of the typical character bashing.  After he repeated this statement for the third time to Todd, Todd ended the interview, proving himself to be typical of every press person covering this presidential race.

Ravenous.

Hopefully, Martin O'Malley or Lincoln Chaffee (Democrat presidential candidates), will feed the ravenous ones more than Sanders will or this coronation of Hillary will not even be worthy of dressing up for.  Sanders, an Independent who describes himself politically as a democratic socialist, could just as easily be thrown into battle with all those republicans- or debate with a few of those who are undeclared and still waiting for a sign. In fact, Sanders suggested to Rachel Maddow that the debates include some between the two parties instead of the traditional primary style infighting.  No sooner than Sanders declared this concept did Hillary who's not talking to the press, use the press to begin to call out the Republicans Governors by name for their support of nationwide voter suppression efforts.

Is Not The Vote Sacred?

If Christie is answering Hillary against
her voter suppression attack, he must
be running for president- right?

Forget about that impossible campaign finance reform dream. Now Hillary is striking a cord with me by going after voter suppression in particular- a cord that most politicians seem utterly ambivalent to, as if the American vote is not a sacred aspect of democracy.  With so many people abstaining from the act of voting, its easy to understand their ambivalence, yet I expect anyone who wants my vote to be an arbiter of Constitutional justice and a protector of its sanctity.  How any elected person could fight for the protection of our right to bear arms and then limit our access to voting at the same time is peculiar and not beholden to the spirit of freedom that is America, especially since the Mexicans they fear as voters may never gain that right while millions of Mexican Americans are joining the voting ranks each year and will be reminded by Hillary of who is courting them and who is afraid to treat them with the dignity they deserve.

As the modern mass media keeps attempting to force the presidential field to re-litigate the Iraq war, Hillary will do herself and this nation a favor by forcing every candidate to take a stance on voting rights which must become a federal right and not state by state fiat, even if Americans barely use the power of the vote in the first place.  Republican presidential hopefuls like Rick Perry and Chris Christie have taken the lure from Hillary, and Bernie Sanders should be appreciating it the most since he was the first to suggest the cross party fist fight idea.

Rick Perry might be trying to pass the buck back to the will of Texas citizens who submitted the voter restrictions bills to their republican governor for him to sign- and he did, which means president Perry would never sign to remove the freedom to restrict the vote from states and governors who continue to abuse it. In my opinion, signing any voter suppression bill should be a greater disqualifier for the presidency than playing politics after an unforeseen attack in Benghazi, but that might be too open minded of a perspective given the millions of dollars we keep spending to investigate an obvious story, closing our mind the the notion that nothing else is left to discover.



One of these days, when the final Benghazi investigation is finally over, will we discover that Hillary killed Ambassador Stephens herself, or ordered the hit?  Anything less is not a scandal even if it is exactly what the investigators keep calling it in the first place- a mischaracterization for the sake of politics.  Some new law might need to be created to force a campaigning president from spinning the death of an American to the betterment of his re-election efforts.  At the same time, we need to make another law that keeps Senator's from doing endless investigations on the taxpayer dime just for political reasons as well.

Bernie, a declared socialist (as am I), is far from seeing the day when America will consider losing the Cold War by electing a socialist as a president, so he can't actually win.
As a socialist, Bernie  and I understand that national healthcare and lifetime education benefits will make the need of most other  social programs unnecessary. Bernie also understands that his best hope is America's best hope- that we finally have a decisive debate against supply side economics, the only consistent theme that conjoins one conservative to another these days since they all vary on immigration, abortion, same sex marriage, foreign policy and everything else that once defined the conservative party.  Even, Rick Santorum has placed supply side economics under an indictment since there simply is no evidence that the wealthy will allow anything to trickle down, especially amidst the fear created by the 2nd Great Depression.

The populist message won't be lead by the woman who first started the charge, Elizabeth Warren, but it will be carried, and seemingly in the mouths of democrats and republicans alike who have all accepted the inevitability of the need for redistribution efforts of some sort. That doesn't mean some candidates won't tell you what you want to hear until they get elected.  It does mean that they finally recognize the necessity of saying it, which is a seismic shift from even the last presidential election.
When we finally put a new president into the White House, we might look back on the voice of Bernie and credit him with the Bernie Effect on the 2016 race.  Warren should be placed in the subtext.