Topics: Bernie Sanders, The Huffington Post, Hillary Clinton, Libya, 2016 Democratic primary, 2016 presidental election, Jesse Jackson, Dick Cheney, Elections News, Social News, Politics News

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a talented woman with tremendous leadership skills and keen sense of purpose. She’s survived decades of criticism from Republicans, in addition to the political baggage associated with her husband, and helped create a powerhouse within the Democratic Party. Although I’m the biggest Bernie Sanders booster on the internet, I appreciate the fact Hillary Clinton endured the sexism of the 1990s and once courageously battled Gingrich and other Republicans. She’s earned a great deal of what she’s built, and alongside Bill Clinton, helped redefine American politics in many respects.

However, what drives me to advocate a Bernie Sanders presidency in such a passionate manner can be summarized by the astute political evaluation of both Clintons from Joy-Ann Reid. In an interview with Amy Goodman on “Democracy Now,” Ms. Reid explains a central theme of her book titled “Fracture: Barack Obama, the Clintons, and the Racial Divide:”

JOY-ANN REID: Yeah, it’s interesting, because Hillary Clinton has had this remarkable arc over the course of her life, from being a sort of conservative, “Goldwater Girl”… And so she sort of occupied this strange space that has mirrored the Democratic Party, that’s gone left, she’s gone right, she’s been hawkish, she’s been sort of the neocon in the party.

In my writing and in my advocacy of Bernie Sanders, I’ve tried to highlight this critical aspect of the 2016 Election, albeit in a more forceful manner.

Hillary Clinton has gone right, and like Reid states, “she’s been hawkish, she’s been sort of the neocon in the party.” In addition to Joy-Ann Reid, leading historians in The New York Times have discussed Hillary Clinton’s neoconservative advisers, in addition to a future “neocon” foreign policy.

Vox states “Hillary Clinton will pull the Democrats — and the country — in a hawkish direction,” yet the same people who believe Dick Cheney is Satan’s spawn could care less. The billions spent on perpetual wars could fund universal healthcare, but again, liberals have evolved on the definition of “pragmatism.”

This privilege is the embodiment of the Clinton name, but also the embodiment of the fact both Clintons are white. Hillary Clinton once called Barack Obama “elitist” for stating Americans cling to their guns, and ran a racist 3 a. m. commercial questioning his ability to make the right foreign policy decisions, yet few liberal pundits remember ancient history. In response, Obama labeled Clinton “Annie Oakley,” but the politics showed a white Democrat painting her black rival as weak; both in domestic and foreign policy.

Militarism, and its effects within American society, removes the emphasis away from those in poverty or struggling economically and towards threats like ISIS. More time is spent on nightly news programs addressing terrorism than the 27% of African Americans living in poverty or the 1 million African Americans in prison.

While a Bernie Sanders presidency would limit overarching foreign policy objectives and focus upon universal healthcare and free college tuition, his rival is never questioned about the price tag associated with destroying ISIS. Rather, the pragmatism of free college tuition is now an issue, even on the left, while Clinton’s foreign policy is hailed as smart power, not dangerous and costly.

Since the Democratic Party should stand for the antithesis of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, it’s bizarre that progressive pundits would ignore a glaring philosophical weakness in Hillary Clinton’s record on war and foreign policy. Not many people can vote for Iraq, advocate a disastrous Libyan intervention, and write a glowing book review on Henry Kissinger’s memoirs, yet still be called a liberal icon.

This is the epitome of white privilege.

Hillary’s privilege allows this bizarre state of affairs to exist.

Of course, the Bush Administration started the ball rolling on perpetual wars, but Democrats like Hillary Clinton helped them in this regard. Ultimately, this dynamic hurts poor people. Martin Luther King’s Beyond Vietnam speech in 1967 highlights the relationship between war and poverty: