Ironically, Trump's foreign policy positions are opposed to Clinton-inspired mayhem. He says that he wants to trade with Russia instead of starting a nation-ruining new Cold War. He says that it's stupid to get involved in civil wars that crash nations on a hit list since it causes much more trouble than it's worth. So go figure, who has the more enlightened and humane foreign policy?
Clinton is simply unacceptable as the nominee of the Democratic Party.
JB: Clinton's definitely losing to Bernie in the integrity metric. But does that ultimately even matter?
MC: This time around, I believe that the integrity factor matters a great deal. In general, people prefer their leaders to have a high degree of integrity. Sometimes, we'll tolerate a corrupt leader if he or she is highly effective. In the case of Bill Clinton, and earlier with Richard Nixon, large segments of the pubic knowingly tolerated "a bastard" because he was working for us, getting results.
This time it's different. People are tired of the used car salesman rhetoric and want the truth. For example, Sanders is the first politician at this level to attack Wall Street directly: "It is an outrage that not one major Wall Street executive has gone to jail for causing the near collapse of the economy. The failure to prosecute the crooks on Wall Street for their illegal and reckless behavior is a clear indictment of our broken criminal justice system." Senator Bernie Sanders, October 16, 2015.
On the question of "honest and trustworthy" versus "not honest and trustworthy, Clinton's scores are 31% and 58% respectively among the general public while Sanders 41% honest-trustworthy and 27% not so. Another national poll showed that 55% of the general population thinks Clinton lacks the integrity to be an "effective president."
Enough people are aware of the strong connection between corrupt leaders and failed policies and outcomes to think clearly about the obvious differences between Hillary and Bernie Sanders.
When Hillary is either indicted for mishandling top secret information or when proof of her guilt is leaked showing an intention is to cover up her crimes, her candidacy will be over. That could be the event that gives us the opportunity to see Bernie Sanders get the Democratic nomination and win the general election.
JB: What do you think about the president weighing in, saying that Bernie will be dropping out soon and the party will come together? Was that appropriate or even prudent? Or was he, actually, short circuiting the democratic process?
MC: The president is doing his job according to the wishes of his employers. I'm speaking, of course, of the Wall Street financial elite cabal. These are the same folks who run Hillary and Bill Clinton. Obama is weighing in to protect The Money Party. He's protecting the franchise. Right after the House turned down the first Bush bailout, candidate Obama interrupted his 2008 presidential campaign to return to Washington with his opponent, Sen. John McCain. Why? Together, they urged the House and Senate to pass the Wall Street bailouts. It worked. As president, Obama saw to it that Wall Street got more bailouts and that nobody was prosecuted.
Bernie Sanders calls Wall Street manipulators what they are: crooks. He's their worst nightmare. The president will go after Sanders more aggressively if he has a real chance to get the nomination. Right now, Obama is just needling from the sidelines.
It's appropriate for Obama to do this because he's representing his people, the financial elite, a tiny group that does not include the vast majority of citizens. As far as short circuiting the democratic process, Obama, Clinton and the Republicans could care less. Their main goal is power and protection.
JB: You mentioned before a possible indictment or the leak of very damaging information. I'd like to come back to that for a moment. Do you anticipate anything of the sort? And if so, would it be in time to sink Hillary's candidacy and propel Bernie to the nomination?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).