If you think that we need a leader who will push to change the way we see the world then it makes perfect sense to imagine Bernie as the realistic candidate, the one who will get things done.
The price tag for replacing the lead pipes that contaminated its drinking water is now estimated at up to $1.5 billion. No one knows where that money will come from or when it will arrive. In the meantime, the cost to the children of Flint has been and will be incalculable.
Donald Trump's decisive win in the New Hampshire Primary may have put the final nail in the coffin of conventional and establishment theories on presidential campaigning in the United States, as a new paradigm has arisen. Its author is Donald J. Trump.
Gender, race, economic justice, transphobia and homophobia matter in the United States today, and Hillary Clinton's proud history of fighting for all of us give her knowledge, insights, and wisdom that others do not have.
Yes, some 50 percent of voters say they wouldn't vote for a socialist; but a lot of those are people who haven't thought about the word since the 1970s. We should take this profession of hostility less seriously.
It is time once again to peer deeply into my somewhat-foggy crystal ball, and attempt to pick the winners of tomorrow night's New Hampshire primary. Before I get to that, though, some old business needs to be brought up. First, we have some very recent old business and then some truly ancient business, so bear with me.
Secretary Hillary Clinton has accepted millions in "speaking fees" and campaign contributions from interest groups - most notably Wall Street firms - that she will be in a position to help or hurt as president. She promises that the money will not influence her if she takes office, but voters are understandably skeptical.
What's the best way to thank Afghans who have risked their lives helping US troops? Offer them a chance to live in America, and then make the process impossible and the costs astronomical.
Maybe if we stopped claiming that we were the greatest, most exceptional, most indispensable nation ever and that the U.S. military was the finest fighting force in the history of the world, both we and the world might be better off and modestly more peaceful.
As the Democratic presidential race heats up, the debate on financial reform has taken a bizarre twist. Somehow the measure of a good reform is its ability to prevent another 2008-type financial crisis.
Kerry has come dangerously close to seeing the Syrian conflict as a binary fight between two forms of ruthless dictatorship -- Assad and the Islamic State group. This is exactly how Assad frames the conflict, and it is one of the main reasons why ISIS is growing in strength.
The thing is, the average voter -- the one who's going to trudge through a half-foot of snow on Tuesday and decide the New Hampshire primary -- doesn't care all that much about North Korea and its missile launches. What he or she really cares about is a system that is rigged against them.
Although Puerto Rico's 3.5 million residents are Americans, they are not represented by voting members of Congress, helping to often make them afterthoughts in congressional debates. But the island's problems are neither small nor remote.
My pragmatist friends make a number of arguments in their effort to dismiss the Sanders phenomenon.First, Sanders is too left-wing to get nominated, much less elected. In principle he is, but this isn't a normal year. There is mass economic frustration in the land; it is finally, belatedly, the main issue in a presidential campaign; and, it is up for grabs politically and ideologically. We can blame foreigners and government, or we can blame a badly tilted economic system. If a Republican populist is nominated, a Democratic populist might well do better than a Democratic moderate in energizing the electorate and winning over working class voters who might otherwise support a figure like Donald Trump. The polls show Sanders doing better than Clinton against the main Republican contenders. My pragmatist friends dismiss these on the grounds that the voters haven't really focused on Sanders' views yet, and the Republicans haven't yet opened up the heavy artillery.
Media message received: Clinton is loud and cantankerous! But it's not just awkward gender stereotypes that are in play these days. It's a much larger pattern of thumb-on-the-scale coverage and commentary. Just look at what seemed to be the press' insatiable appetite to frame Clinton's Iowa caucus win last week as an unnerving loss.
While the press likes to portray Santorum as a kooky culture warrior and Rubio as an establishment square, the two hold many of the exact same positions. The similarities start with their dangerous views on abortion rights.
Why is it so important for voters to have a chance to see the transcripts? Voters must decide whether or not, despite Secretary Clinton's impressive resume, she's a part of that rigged system. Secretary Clinton claims that she is not, that she has spent her life fighting the same special interests who have paid her and her husband tens of millions of dollars to give private speeches, and that any implication to the contrary is an "artful smear" by the Sanders campaign.
This debate was not so much about winners and also-rans as it was about the one clear loser: Marco Rubio. If Rubio had not shown so much promise earlier in the campaign, the loss would seem less momentous.
Like many simplistic and "sound bite" arguments of the modern era, and of Sanders in particular, the argument that Hillary Clinton supported the war George W. Bush prosecuted in Iraq is nonsense.