I'm voting for him and people who are fans need to do so too. Let's not crown Hilary Queen.

I too will vote for Bernie. And as a resident of South Carolina with its early primary I should be able to cast a vote that will actually get counted. I hope that everyone will be able to say the same next year.

My mother, who turns 85 next week, is in for Bernie. I believe that Maine has an early caucus, too.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I too will vote for Bernie. And as a resident of South Carolina with its early primary I should be able to cast a vote that will actually get counted. I hope that everyone will be able to say the same next year.

I was wondering if that would be the case for you. FYI...looks like we found our next dream home...

Con is it's in Fort Mill, SC. I will be moving to a solid Red state in time for the primaries. :-/

ok this is OT but to you South Carolinians- wuzzup with that Rebel Flag? I thought your Governor wanted down. So somebody takes it down & gets busted? then later on there's a Klan rally in front of it? WTF??!!!??

Originally Posted by millennialX

I'm voting for him and people who are fans need to do so too. Let's not crown Hilary Queen.

I never was a strong Hillary supporter (altho I voted for her in 2008 bcuz, well, look @ the alternative we've been stuck with since then) & since I found out she had a hand in that TPP screwing I'm totally done with her. I won't be voting for her if they do crown her queen. It's Bernie or bust for me

Originally Posted by marypoza

I never was a strong Hillary supporter (altho I voted for her in 2008 bcuz, well, look @ the alternative we've been stuck with since then) & since I found out she had a hand in that TPP screwing I'm totally done with her. I won't be voting for her if they do crown he queen. It's Bernie or bust for me

I doubt Bernie is more than a talking horse candidate. He's too outside the norm to be a serious runner.

We've had stalking horses before. Gene McCarthy played the role, and brought Bobby Kennedy into the 1968 race, and sadly to his doom. I'm not sure who else could be The One this time, but Martin O'Malley seems solid as a candidate and good on the issues. He's low profile for the moment, but that could change if Hillary gets rousted in an early primary or two. As for Bernie, I don't see him getting the money he would need to compete.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I doubt Bernie is more than a stalking horse candidate. He's too outside the norm to be a serious runner.

We've had stalking horses before. Gene McCarthy played the role, and brought Bobby Kennedy into the 1968 race, and sadly to his doom. I'm not sure who else could be The One this time, but Martin O'Malley seems solid as a candidate and good on the issues. He's low profile for the moment, but that could change if Hillary gets rousted in an early primary or two. As for Bernie, I don't see him getting the money he would need to compete.

From another thread:

Originally Posted by Emman85

F
We are at insane levels of political polarization, according to a 2014 pew survey partisan animosity has substantially increased just over the past 10 years: political polarization in the american public

The right wing isn't the only demographic in American politics that is drifting toward more extreme positions.

The all-important moderates that elected Bill Clinton in the 1990s simply don't exist anymore. It's well in to a 4T and the people have taken sides. The people who are on the extremes are the ones who vote, and donate, and call Congress, and write letters.

The shrinking middle hasn't picked a side because they don't really care all that much. Even Hillary, who spent decades carefully calculating a middle road position knows this now - and that's why she's trying to copy her policy prescriptions from Bernie Sanders, and campaign strategies from Obama.

The trick, these days, is getting the base out to vote. The deep base. Squishy moderates don't rally Millennials, and the left can win any election they want if they actually run someone at the left's new median. But like I've been saying for years, the Democrats are just too damn conservative to win big in this electoral environment.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I doubt Bernie is more than a stalking horse candidate. He's too outside the norm to be a serious runner.

We've had stalking horses before. Gene McCarthy played the role, and brought Bobby Kennedy into the 1968 race, and sadly to his doom. I'm not sure who else could be The One this time, but Martin O'Malley seems solid as a candidate and good on the issues. He's low profile for the moment, but that could change if Hillary gets rousted in an early primary or two. As for Bernie, I don't see him getting the money he would need to compete.

Martin O'Malley not only doesn't have broad appeal or support, he doesn't even have a horoscope score better than Hillary's.

Bernie would have money problems, but he has the best score, so he will run a good race. On the horoscopic merits, he should win, but then so should have Gary Johnson. You get my drift.

I have been intrigued with Bernie Sanders ever since his speech on the floor of the Senate on December 10, 2010. I purchased and read with relish The Speech: A Historic Filibuster on Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class. He spared not even Barack Obama, who I knew from the start would be a disappointment as President, given his Senate voting record on the Iraq War, and the status quo economic advisors he surrounded himself with leading up to the 2008 election. Which is why I voted for the Green Party once again. Notwithstanding his appealing policy prescriptions for the economy, I have several issues with Bernie Sanders. First, I agree with Marx & Lennon that he will prove to be little more than a stalking horse, pushing the presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton just far enough to the left on the campaign trail that she keeps progressive voters in the Democratic fold. Furthermore, as Nomi Prins recently wrote in TomDispatch, the big money is behind Jeb Bush and Hilllary Clinton. "That said," she writes, "in the Bush-Clinton battle to come, no matter who wins, the bankers and billionaires will emerge victorious." Only if the financial system melts down ahead of the 2016 election, does an outlier like Sanders stand a ghost of a chance. If he's going to run at all, I would rather he run at the top of a Democratic Socialist ticket. The Democratic Party may be on the right side of history when it comes to social issues. But when it comes to authorizing and funding wars, and bailing out Wall Street, Dems are every bit as craven as the opposition. I simply won't cast another vote for the Lesser-of-Two Evils, the ostensible rationale for voting for Democratic presidential candidates. Too, has anyone considered the fact that, if elected, he would be 75, and thus the oldest President ever inaugurated? The odds increase that he might not live out a first term, let alone a second. In my opinion, the real change election will not be until 2020, based on the assumption that the Powers That Be (the Fed and other central bankers) will forestall the bursting of the third asset bubble until after the 2016 election. After that, whoever is President (pick your poison: Bush or Clinton) will go down as the next Herbert Hoover, and in all likelihood push his or her party--as currently conceived--into the dustbin of history. Then and only then, will an anti-system party and its leader take center stage. And that party could just as well be on the Far Right as the Far Left.

I'm all in for Bernie!

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

I have been intrigued with Bernie Sanders ever since his speech on the floor of the Senate on December 10, 2010. I purchased and read with relish The Speech: A Historic Filibuster on Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class. He spared not even Barack Obama, who I knew from the start would be a disappointment as President, given his Senate voting record on the Iraq War, and the status quo economic advisors he surrounded himself with leading up to the 2008 election. Which is why I voted for the Green Party once again. Notwithstanding his appealing policy prescriptions for the economy, I have several issues with Bernie Sanders. First, I agree with Marx & Lennon that he will prove to be little more than a stalking horse, pushing the presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton just far enough to the left on the campaign trail that she keeps progressive voters in the Democratic fold. Furthermore, as Nomi Prins recently wrote in TomDispatch, the big money is behind Jeb Bush and Hilllary Clinton. "That said," she writes, "in the Bush-Clinton battle to come, no matter who wins, the bankers and billionaires will emerge victorious." Only if the financial system melts down ahead of the 2016 election, does an outlier like Sanders stand a ghost of a chance. If he's going to run at all, I would rather he run at the top of a Democratic Socialist ticket.

The Democratic Party may be on the right side of history when it comes to social issues. But when it comes to authorizing and funding wars, and bailing out Wall Street, Dems are every bit as craven as the opposition. I simply won't cast another vote for the Lesser-of-Two Evils, the ostensible rationale for voting for Democratic presidential candidates. Too, has anyone considered the fact that, if elected, he would be 75, and thus the oldest President ever inaugurated? The odds increase that he might not live out a first term, let alone a second. In my opinion, the real change election will not be until 2020, based on the assumption that the Powers That Be (the Fed and other central bankers) will forestall the bursting of the third asset bubble until after the 2016 election. After that, whoever is President (pick your poison: Bush or Clinton) will go down as the next Herbert Hoover, and in all likelihood push his or her party--as currently conceived--into the dustbin of history. Then and only then, will an anti-system party and its leader take center stage. And that party could just as well be on the Far Right as the Far Left.

That's a good post, and I agree generally and might vote Green again too (I am Eric the Green after all). Some nitpiks though. There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats on both war and Wall St.. Post-Vietnam Democrats have been much more restrained on war than the Republicans. Democratic presidents since then have launched attacks on "terrorists," but have not started any wars involving ground troops. Democrats passed Wall street reform, which gives some tools for dealing with banks in any next great recession. Republicans do all they can to repeal and stop any reforms.

Indications are that the incumbent party will win the White House in 2016 and 2020. Hillary is a weak candidate, but Jeb Bush has severe drawbacks. Since the next recession will not threaten the economy like the previous one did, then the greatest chance for an anti-system party will be 2024. That could be a katy-bar-the-door election in every way. Meanwhile, a progressive congress will be elected by 2022, if not 2020.

I think Hillary is a weak candidate this time around as well. She doesn't appear to have the support now that she had back in 2008. I'm thinking Bernie may actually pull this off. I saw an article on The Hill stating he has already raised $15 million, which is only 1/3 of Hillary's $45 million, except Bernie's $ didn't come from pacs or corporations. It came from individuals. Bernie could become a juggernaut

Originally Posted by millennialX

I was wondering if that would be the case for you. FYI...looks like we found our next dream home...

Con is it's in Fort Mill, SC. I will be moving to a solid Red state in time for the primaries. :-/

Yes the main problem with Fort Mil is that it is in SC. However as father you will be happy to know that the Fort Mill School District always ranks either number one or number two in SC. There is a district containing parts of Richland and Lexington Counties that is FM's in state academic rival.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Too, has anyone considered the fact that, if elected, (Bernie) would be 75, and thus the oldest President ever inaugurated? The odds increase that he might not live out a first term, let alone a second.

this is true. Bernie would have to pick a VP that would carry on with his policies. If the Dems let him pick his VP. They may insist on doing the picking since Bernie's not a real Dem. They probably won't let him pick Elizabeth Warren since both are New Englanders. If he can get away with picking my homeboy Sherrod, that would be good.

otoh McCain's still with us. Had he been elected in 2008 That Woman would not be Prez

After that, whoever is President (pick your poison: Bush or Clinton) will go down as the next Herbert Hoover.

I thought bam-bam was O'Hoover

Originally Posted by marypoza

I thought bam-bam was O'Hoover

As I see it Obama is getting the two terms that Al Smith would have gotten if the stock market crash had happened in Oct. 1928 instead of Oct. 1929. A less than landslide win followed by an economic patch job just good enough to gain a re election victory smaller than his first one in the heat of the crash. So 2016=a different kind of 1936. And I'll lave it at that.

Believe me, I understand the enthusiasm Bernie Sanders has garnered at recent political rallies, as well as that expressed by some members of this forum.
To those who support his candidacy wholeheartedly, I have three questions: First, where is the discussion about his stance on foreign policy? Second, if he is the socialist he says he is, why is he running under the banner of the Democratic Party? Third, what real chance does he stand against the likes of Hillary Clinton who, although she has formally launched her presidential campaign, has not yet begun to fight?

As argued by Michael Arria in a recent AlterNet article, Sanders has a troubling history of supporting US military action abroad. Arria writes, "Sanders criticized Hillary Clinton for her support of the Iraq war, declaring, 'On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq…Not only I voted against, I helped lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster.' Sanders' assertion about Clinton is obviously true, but the difference between the two candidates on war is hardly substantial and his political closet is filled with as many skeletons. Notably he supported NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, a stance which caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.' True, he voted against the Iraq war authorization, but the fact remains that he voted for appropriations bills to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Notwithstanding his almost impeccable credentials on domestic policy, Sanders has not come out four-square against US military adventurism. He should take a page out of Eugene Deb's playbook, and adopt an unequivocal anti-war stance. Debs understood in the clearest terms possible that the rich make wars, and the poor fight them. Unless Sanders stakes out a similar position, he's just "half a loaf" as far as socialism is concerned. Ashley Smith has written in the SocialistWorker.org that Sanders "may have a portrait of Eugene Debs hanging in his office, but his politics have little in common with that great American socialist."

Sanders may call himself an Independent, but he caucuses with the Democrats. Smith questions this label, saying, "As his long-time antagonist and now ally, Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, said on the NBC's Meet the Press, 'He is basically a liberal Democrat, and he is a Democrat at that--he runs as an Independent because he doesn't like the structure and money that gets involved...The bottom line...Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time.' I realize that ballot access for third parties is an uphill climb in our convoluted electoral system, but I would rather he run on the Green Party platform rather than let himself be co-opted by a Democratic Party that has been pulled further and further to the right ever since the Clinton administration.

Finally, look at the woeful history of Democratic "upstarts" who take on the party establishment. They are quickly marginalized as fringe candidates or mischaracterized by their more conventional rivals, often with the help of a compliant press: Eugene McCarthy in 1968; Jesse Jackson in 1984; Howard Dean in 2004. They were undone by campaign gaffes, fairly or not, and quickly vanquished by the ultimate presidential nominees. Bernie Sanders is now basking in the first flush of success, just as they were. But can there be any doubt that the political juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton will lay him low once she or her henchmen take on Sanders with a vengeance? And if Sanders should somehow wrest the nomination from her, the Republican Party will almost certainly bring him down by red-baiting him with the "socialist" label.

I hate to be fatalistic, but I've seen this movie too many times before. Recent polls suggest, especially among X'ers and Millennials, that there is increasing acceptance of socialism as a concept. But the time for a true socialist has not yet come, though it is drawing nearer. At best, Bernie Sanders is the "set-up man" (to use a baseball analogy) for the one who can close the deal.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Believe me, I understand the enthusiasm Bernie Sanders has garnered at recent political rallies, as well as that expressed by some members of this forum.
To those who support his candidacy wholeheartedly, I have three questions: First, where is the discussion about his stance on foreign policy? Second, if he is the socialist he says he is, why is he running under the banner of the Democratic Party? Third, what real chance does he stand against the likes of Hillary Clinton who, although she has formally launched her presidential campaign, has not yet begun to fight?

As argued by Michael Arria in a recent AlterNet article, Sanders has a troubling history of supporting US military action abroad. Arria writes, "Sanders criticized Hillary Clinton for her support of the Iraq war, declaring, 'On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq…Not only I voted against, I helped lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster.' Sanders' assertion about Clinton is obviously true, but the difference between the two candidates on war is hardly substantial and his political closet is filled with as many skeletons. Notably he supported NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, a stance which caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.' True, he voted against the Iraq war authorization, but the fact remains that he voted for appropriations bills to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Notwithstanding his almost impeccable credentials on domestic policy, Sanders has not come out four-square against US military adventurism. He should take a page out of Eugene Deb's playbook, and adopt an unequivocal anti-war stance. Debs understood in the clearest terms possible that the rich make wars, and the poor fight them. Unless Sanders stakes out a similar position, he's just "half a loaf" as far as socialism is concerned. Ashley Smith has written in the SocialistWorker.org that Sanders "may have a portrait of Eugene Debs hanging in his office, but his politics have little in common with that great American socialist."

Sanders may call himself an Independent, but he caucuses with the Democrats. Smith questions this label, saying, "As his long-time antagonist and now ally, Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, said on the NBC's Meet the Press, 'He is basically a liberal Democrat, and he is a Democrat at that--he runs as an Independent because he doesn't like the structure and money that gets involved...The bottom line...Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time.' I realize that ballot access for third parties is an uphill climb in our convoluted electoral system, but I would rather he run on the Green Party platform rather than let himself be co-opted by a Democratic Party that has been pulled further and further to the right ever since the Clinton administration.

Finally, look at the woeful history of Democratic "upstarts" who take on the party establishment. They are quickly marginalized as fringe candidates or mischaracterized by their more conventional rivals, often with the help of a compliant press: Eugene McCarthy in 1968; Jesse Jackson in 1984; Howard Dean in 2004. They were undone by campaign gaffes, fairly or not, and quickly vanquished by the ultimate presidential nominees. Bernie Sanders is now basking in the first flush of success, just as they were. But can there be any doubt that the political juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton will lay him low once she or her henchmen take on Sanders with a vengeance? And if Sanders should somehow wrest the nomination from her, the Republican Party will almost certainly bring him down by red-baiting him with the "socialist" label.

I hate to be fatalistic, but I've seen this movie too many times before. Recent polls suggest, especially among X'ers and Millennials, that there is increasing acceptance of socialism as a concept. But the time for a true socialist has not yet come, though it is drawing nearer. At best, Bernie Sanders is the "set-up man" (to use a baseball analogy) for the one who can close the deal.

- to answer your 1st question, I believe Bernie's general policy is to butt out. To be honest, I'm more concerned with his domestic policy, which you or that article you quoted admits is impeccable

2nd question- Bernie is in it to win it. In order to do that he needs electoral votes. He can't get electoral votes if he runs as a Green. So he has to run as a Dem. He doesn't want to be a spoiler who will help get a wingnut in the WH (click on link )
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015...-greatest-hits

3rd question- we'll have to wait & see how this all unfolds, won't we

Originally Posted by marypoza

I thought bam-bam was O'Hoover

Dubya was Hoover.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Dubya was Hoover.

Well o'bummer sure as hell was no Roosevelt. Bernie might be a Roosevelt however. Maybe

I think Dubya was Harding/Coolidge. The 80 yr time frame fits for one. Deregulation & the repeal of Glass Steagle led to the same kind of crap that happened in the Roaring 20s. I remember, early in the decade listening to a financial advisor gush on & on about the Roaring 2000s & comparing it to the Roaring 20s . And I'm thinking, yeah & the Roaring 20s ended in a resounding crash. Needless to say I didn't take that dude's advice

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

As argued by Michael Arria in a recent AlterNet article, Sanders has a troubling history of supporting US military action abroad. Arria writes, "Sanders criticized Hillary Clinton for her support of the Iraq war, declaring, 'On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq…Not only I voted against, I helped lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster.' Sanders' assertion about Clinton is obviously true, but the difference between the two candidates on war is hardly substantial and his political closet is filled with as many skeletons. Notably he supported NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, a stance which caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.' True, he voted against the Iraq war authorization, but the fact remains that he voted for appropriations bills to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Notwithstanding his almost impeccable credentials on domestic policy, Sanders has not come out four-square against US military adventurism. He should take a page out of Eugene Deb's playbook, and adopt an unequivocal anti-war stance. Debs understood in the clearest terms possible that the rich make wars, and the poor fight them. Unless Sanders stakes out a similar position, he's just "half a loaf" as far as socialism is concerned. Ashley Smith has written in the SocialistWorker.org that Sanders "may have a portrait of Eugene Debs hanging in his office, but his politics have little in common with that great American socialist."

Not taking the Debs stance on foreign policy, gives Sanders an advantage. If he took a completely anti-war stance, then he would be seen as not upholding the nation's interest, but rather a foreign interloper who is not interested in doing his job to protect the security of the USA. In the USA, that would be suicide. Americans would not accept such a candidate. Sanders apparently would carry on the policy similar to the post-Vietnam Democratic presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama. He would not start a war, but would use American power in concert with others to uphold international law and peace. That's what Clinton did in Bosnia and Kosovo, with excellent results. I, as a Green Party supporter and Boomer Vietnam-war and Iraq wars protester, supported Clinton's action. Sanders also supports Obama's current policy in Iraq, but would oppose sending ground troops. That I agree with as well.

Sanders may call himself an Independent, but he caucuses with the Democrats. Smith questions this label, saying, "As his long-time antagonist and now ally, Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, said on the NBC's Meet the Press, 'He is basically a liberal Democrat, and he is a Democrat at that--he runs as an Independent because he doesn't like the structure and money that gets involved...The bottom line...Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time.' I realize that ballot access for third parties is an uphill climb in our convoluted electoral system, but I would rather he run on the Green Party platform rather than let himself be co-opted by a Democratic Party that has been pulled further and further to the right ever since the Clinton administration.

maryposa answered that one well.

Finally, look at the woeful history of Democratic "upstarts" who take on the party establishment. They are quickly marginalized as fringe candidates or mischaracterized by their more conventional rivals, often with the help of a compliant press: Eugene McCarthy in 1968; Jesse Jackson in 1984; Howard Dean in 2004. They were undone by campaign gaffes, fairly or not, and quickly vanquished by the ultimate presidential nominees. Bernie Sanders is now basking in the first flush of success, just as they were. But can there be any doubt that the political juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton will lay him low once she or her henchmen take on Sanders with a vengeance? And if Sanders should somehow wrest the nomination from her, the Republican Party will almost certainly bring him down by red-baiting him with the "socialist" label.

I hate to be fatalistic, but I've seen this movie too many times before. Recent polls suggest, especially among X'ers and Millennials, that there is increasing acceptance of socialism as a concept. But the time for a true socialist has not yet come, though it is drawing nearer. At best, Bernie Sanders is the "set-up man" (to use a baseball analogy) for the one who can close the deal.

Probably correct on the above.

From my horoscope perspective, I'd say Sanders is not to be underestimated, however. He is a strong candidate who will run a good race. That doesn't mean he can overcome his "wing" status in US politics, but it's not impossible.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Well o'bummer sure as hell was no Roosevelt. Bernie might be a Roosevelt however. Maybe

I think Dubya was Harding/Coolidge. The 80 yr time frame fits for one. Deregulation & the repeal of Glass Steagle led to the same kind of crap that happened in the Roaring 20s. I remember, early in the decade listening to a financial advisor gush on & on about the Roaring 2000s. And I'm thinking, yeah & the Roaring 20s ended in a resounding crash. Needless to say I didn't take that dude's advice

I think Bush 2nd Term and Obama first term works for Hoover.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I think Bush 2nd Term and Obama first term works for Hoover.

No, Obama is FDR three years too early.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Well o'bummer sure as hell was no Roosevelt. Bernie might be a Roosevelt however. Maybe

I think Dubya was Harding/Coolidge. The 80 yr time frame fits for one. Deregulation & the repeal of Glass Steagle led to the same kind of crap that happened in the Roaring 20s. I remember, early in the decade listening to a financial advisor gush on & on about the Roaring 2000s. And I'm thinking, yeah & the Roaring 20s ended in a resounding crash. Needless to say I didn't take that dude's advice

Yeah, some people should have taken mine instead:

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

I have three questions: First, where is the discussion about his stance on foreign policy?

In your opinion, is he worse than Clinton or any of the GOP candidates on this issue? If not, what's your alternative, not vote?

Second, if he is the socialist he says he is, why is he running under the banner of the Democratic Party?

He is running as a Democrat because this way he will not split the progressive vote in the general election and enable a Republican to win, as happened in 2000.

Third, what real chance does he stand against the likes of Hillary Clinton

Slim to none. Again, what is the alternative? Run as a third party and enable a Republican. Been there done that. Didn't work all that well last time for Progressives. A Gore presidency instead of Bush would have made a difference. Your brand of thinking resulted in Bush.

As argued by Michael Arria in a recent AlterNet article, Sanders has a troubling history of supporting US military action abroad.

As compared to which other major party candidate or sitting senator?

Sanders' assertion about Clinton is obviously true, but the difference between the two candidates on war is hardly substantial and his political closet is filled with as many skeletons. Notably he supported NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, a stance which caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.' True, he voted against the Iraq war authorization

There is a HUGE difference between the brief air war in Kosovo and the Iraq war. Given a choice between candidate 1 who was in favor of all the little interventions (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya) but opposed Iraq, and candidate 2 who opposed all the littler interventions, but voted for Iraq, I would choose #1 hands down.

Sanders has not come out four-square against US military adventurism.

The only major party candidate who has was Ron Paul. Did you support him?

He should take a page out of Eugene Deb's playbook, and adopt an unequivocal anti-war stance.

What did Debs' presidential campaigns accomplish?

Finally, look at the woeful history of Democratic "upstarts" who take on the party establishment. They are quickly marginalized as fringe candidates or mischaracterized by their more conventional rivals, often with the help of a compliant press: Eugene McCarthy in 1968; Jesse Jackson in 1984; Howard Dean in 2004. They were undone by campaign gaffes, fairly or not, and quickly vanquished by the ultimate presidential nominees. Bernie Sanders is now basking in the first flush of success, just as they were. But can there be any doubt that the political juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton will lay him low once she or her henchmen take on Sanders with a vengeance? And if Sanders should somehow wrest the nomination from her, the Republican Party will almost certainly bring him down by red-baiting him with the "socialist" label.

And running as third party would have gotten them elected? I don't get your point.