In a new report, "How the Sanders Social Security is Not Progressive," Third Way is warning the electorate that Sanders is coddling the rich. Sanders, who daily attacks the "billionaire class," is proposing to benefit the rich at the expense of the rest of us? Sound preposterous? That is because it is. Let's examine the facts.
Democrats are split.One camp believes everything is okay, at least in presidential years, because the demographic trends favor us and because the Republicans are so damn good at alienating people. Another camp thinks we need to panic because the numbers of Democratic elected officials are so low and Hillary has weaknesses as a candidate.
The Boston Globe about Wall Street's secretly purchased influence in Washington, D.C. was somewhat mistitled as being about the "struggle for the Democratic Party's Soul." It's also about how Wall Street's virtually unlimited cash secretly influences the key debates as well as the policy outcomes in the nation's capital.
Many Democratic women believe Clinton deserves the 2016 nomination because she was a graceful loser in 2008 and a good soldier thereafter. Nonetheless, having Clinton and Warren debate Democratic principles would be good for the party. However, the most serious problem with a Clinton-Warren battle is not gender or ideology. It's money. Many Democrats believe that having Clinton as their presidential candidate would ensure that Dems would receive millions in Wall Street donations, and enough campaign funds in general, to triumph over any likely Republican candidate.