The Guardian Panel: Why we think Bernie Sanders is the best choice for president

[cali]

Steven W Thrasher: ‘He is ready to critique capitalism’

Bernie Sanders offers the possibility of a better political future, the kind of world I’ve been contemplating since the Black Lives Matter movement began. That’s appealing to me. I am not so naive as to think a Sanders presidency will solve everything or even much at all. But I am tired of being told I cannot imagine a better world.

You can’t alleviate any of the systemic problems facing society today – like racism, sexism or income inequality, to name a few – without an honest and sustained critique of capitalism. My support for Sanders stems from his radical (in this country, anyway) willingness to reimagine how our financial system can work. His presidency could open a broader debate about it before the whole thing collapses.

I certainly wish Sanders had enough room in his capacious political imagination to consider the (UN recommended) concept of reparations for slavery. But he seems to get how our economic structure harms most of us, and he’s gotten better at articulating the link between economics and racism since black women challenged him.

I’ve never understood the enthusiastic, robust support for the Clintons from black voters. Bill Clinton amped up policing against us. He irreparably harmed impoverished black families with so-called “welfare reform”. Hillary Clinton made even our black children out to be dangerous “super-predators” deserving harsh punishment.

<snip>
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/08/bernie-sanders-best-choice-president

[Jarqui]

1. Nice way to communicate an endorsement - every person writes their own nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. I like the Tillman Act quote: "evils of the use of money in connection with political elections"

In 1907, when Congress passed the Tillman Act, banning all corporate contributions to candidates, the Senate Report noted: “The evils of the use of money in connection with political elections are so generally recognized that the committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favor of the general purpose of this measure. It is in the interest of good government and calculated to promote purity in the selection of public officials”.
...
“(I)ndependent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. “That (campaign donors) may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”

What was a consensus that didn't need explaining a century ago is now something the Supreme Court won't even think about.