Bernie Sanders about to announce a run for the White House, IMO

[freshwest]

28. He said in MTP interview he might run as a Dem for the organizing ability (funds, networking) but

will in NO way be a spoiler candidate to siphon off Dem votes to an indenpendent, as he said Nader did.

He will have nothing to do with anything that helps a rightwing Republican gain the presidency in 2016 as the party of Koch. His interview from Mother Jones:

Bernie Sanders: I will not be a spoiler who ends up helping to elect a right-wing Republican

MJ: Are you running for president?

BS: I am thinking about running for president. I want to make sure that if I do it, I do it well. Not just for my own ego, but if we run a poor campaign then what I believe in becomes discredited. I am trying to ascertain if I can do it well. I am not like a billionaire who says, "Well, I have decided to run, I have given my campaign manager a billion dollars, we're off and running." This is a different type of campaign. It has to be thought out.

MJ: Would you run as an independent?

BS: There is growing frustration with the two-party system. If I were a multibillionaire the answer would be pretty simple: I would have the financial resources to set up a political infrastructure in 50 states. If you run within the Democratic Caucus, there are a lot of people who would say, "Why did you participate in a party that doesn't stand for very much?" On the other hand, you would be in the debates, get more media attention.

But no matter what I do, I will not play the role of a spoiler who ends up helping to elect a right-wing Republican...

MJ: What happens if we go into the Democratic primary with no serious progressives in the race?

BS: It would be very, very disappointing—not just for the progressive movement but for the American people and our political system. We just came from an election where 63 percent of the people did not vote. Eighty percent of young people did not vote. I think the American people are hurting, frustrated, angry, and they want to get an understanding of what's going on and how we can change the system to improve the lives of working families. And those ideas are not in this political debate...

MJ: If Hillary Clinton became president, would that be a step forward or a step back?

BS: It depends. I have known Hillary Clinton for many, many years. At this particular point, we have no idea of what she will campaign on and what she would do if she were elected president. What I know is, I voted against the war in Iraq and helped lead the effort against that. I was one of the strongest voices in Congress against the deregulation of Wall Street. I believe in a single-payer national health care system. I do not want to see the United States entangled in a never-ending war in the Middle East. I am opposed to the Keystone pipeline. And I am very strongly opposed to the trade policies that we've had for 35 years, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That's my reckoning. You'll have to ask Hillary what her views are.

That is from treestar's OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026451036

He is quoting from this article:

Bernie Sanders Goes Biblical on Income Inequality



The Senate's pugilistic progressive on timorous Dems, America's greed problem, and whether he'll run for president...

http://bit.ly/1CVEh0F

I REALLY, REALLY want him to run as a Democrat. He is in the Democratic caucus and stands against the GOP Libertarian Koch brothers consistently. There is NO daylight between his views and mine.

I might add, HRC was for UHC and it was hashed out a long time ago with great vehemence. And she'll support whoever the nominee will be. The Keystone issue is moot, as Obama vetoed, as I always knew he would due to the statements of well known environmentalists and many conservatives. They said he would not allow it, and he gave his reasons years ago. His manuevering to prevent it is the main reason the Koches and their media created the Tea Party and they have gotten more aggressive with every budget. Obama stated it was a danger not just to climate change, but politically, as the Koch brothers stood to double their $100B net worth with a tax free $100B add from the money they'd make off the pipeline being used as they intended.

The Tea Party was hatched for that as Obama stymied the rubber stamp approval of the pipeline made by Bush in 2007, but more so to implement their long standing agenda, detailed by Reid and Sanders:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014833821#post10

The week Bernie put that online and Reid put it on the floor of the Senate, the Koch media took the momentum it was getting in MSM by going with Bundy 24/7 news coverage so Americans forgot the Koches completely. It was a direct shot across the bow at Reid, in his own backyard and part of their agenda:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026048804

Although some may not like his support of Israel, and I believe intrinsic to his values are all human rights, I do not cede to those who claim everything is about ideology or income inequality as some of their ideal societies left homophobia and misogyny intact while addressing income inequality.

Giving all heterosexual men (of the correct ideological bent, corporate or governmental favor) the right to make a good wage doesn't take care of the rest of the people. There is not cosmic force that says a certain segment of the population will even want a social safety net that benefits anything but their own group.

Equality must be respected unconditionally or it's not Equality, period.

My doubts of his running as I'd like him to do, is that he's stated he is not interested in just being there as a lightning rod in the Democratic debate forum. I felt he would be effective in probing Democratic candidates to prove what they will fight for as POTUS.

In the end, Sanders will support the Democrat, just as he went around the country urging people to come to the polls in 2014 to defeat Republicans, specifically. He sees the difference in the two parties, but wants to go farther. To me, he is a FDR New Deal kind of Democrat by definition, as FDR took the Democratic Party in a different direction to win, and as JFK also began with the Liberal Party then became a Dem.

I'm willing to be corrected, but know they got endorsements before getting in the primaries as Democrats. This post is merely my unsolicted opinion.