While many states are now mesmerized by the prospect of the two most negative candidates - Hillary and Trump - facing each other in November, here in California we're still in our primaries. The two most unpopular candidates aren't our choices right now- as Democrats, our choice is between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
Bernie polls much better against Trump than Hillary, so you might imagine that Democrats would choose a positive candidate in Sanders over a negative one like Clinton. And yet I watch in amazement and some horror as longstanding Democrats wed themselves to Hillary, who is the most corrupt candidate anointed by the party in recent years.
I'm trying to understand the reason for that support.
Is it because Hillary is perceived as "getting things done?" Well, what Hillary "got done" was supporting the Iraq invasion, prosecuting the war in Libya and pushing for more war in Syria. So Hillary's most notable foreign achievements appear to be taking down the three secular nations in the Mideast and replacing them with failed states crawling with jihadist terrorists. I'm sorry, but in what way is that positive? She would have been better off doing nothing
Maybe Hillary's drawing card is that people of color think she supports them. But compared to Bernie Sanders - who actually marched with Martin Luther King while Hillary was supporting segregation- Hillary's acceptance of people of color - like so many of her other ethics - appears to be only skin deep. Because with her endless support of international banks and her million-dollar speaking fees, her top-20 donors consisting large international banks like Goldman Sachs and international wealth-protection law firms, and her multi billion dollar collection plate for The Clinton Foundation, her heart really belongs to the top 0.1%, not to American families who are struggling to get by.
And about those trade agreements: Hillary has thumped for every job-sucking trade agreement- from NAFTA to the current "free trade" agreements across the Pacific (the TPP) and the Atlantic (TTIP), now being negotiated in secret.
Maybe her bastion of support comes from women who, in the worst case of identity politics would vote for Hillary JUST BECAUSE she is a woman. But didn't Clarence Thomas teach us the dangers of identity politics? As with civic rights and economics freedoms, Bernie Sanders is far closer to women's issues than Hillary, who seems determined to prove herself a bigger neocon in the rich-boys' club.
As far as "Trump v Clinton", they represent the worst of both worlds. It seems to boil down to neocon/establishment Hilary versus anti-establishment/loose cannon Trump. Fortunately, there is a third way: Sanders. And since there is still a chance that Sanders can become candidate. it seems I should roll the dice in my favor, because I really have nothing to lose.