This election, as we've all heard, is dominated by angry white people. That is because the primary system is fundamentally racist. The first two presidential contests occur in states whose populations are 92 percent and 94 percent white, respectively.
If the government actually paid for the research, not just at the early phases but through the clinical testing and FDA, then there would be no reason for patent monopolies. Drugs could be sold in a free market just like toothpicks and plastic cups.
Today is the first Election Day of 2016 - and the stakes for the 45th president could not be higher. Go get 'em, right? Wrong.
We are living through the greatest "wealth grab" in history. But inequality is not produced by immutable forces. It's the result of a legislative agenda promoted by the rich and executed by their political allies.
Hillary Clinton likes to extol her foreign policy credentials, particularly her experience as secretary of state. She attaches herself to Barack Obama's coattails, pledging to continue his policies. But she is even more hawkish than the president.
Poor people don't have an immediate network of others available to offer advice, or refer them to cushy on-campus jobs that will allow them a flexible work schedule, or parents that can afford to pay rent and car notes so their kids don't have to stress themselves to death.
The idea that any LGBT people could support Trump while he demagogues other minorities is not just sad; it's repellant. But the Log Cabin Republicans' thinking that he'd actually be "good for the gays" was also just plain deluded.
Many of the same media outlets and overall corporate forces that denounced Eugene McCarthy in 1968, George McGovern in 1972 and Jesse Jackson in 1988 are gunning for Bernie Sanders in 2016. We shouldn't be surprised.
The underlying reluctance of large swaths of the American electorate to continue U.S. meddling in faraway conflicts is reflected by the better-than-expected standing of anti-establishment candidates, such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders.
It seems incongruent that religious voters would support someone so devoid of character as Donald Trump. However, recent polling data has Trump leading all other candidates among evangelical voters.
As income inequality has climbed higher and higher in America, government action has stalled. This lack of policy attention persists despite public opinion polls showing a majority of Americans favor some government action to reduce inequality. Are the wealthy to blame for the lack of action?
Donald Trump, a billionaire who opposes raising the minimum wage, now at the poverty level of $7.25 an hour, is holding himself out to working people as the man who will stand as a dam against that torrent.
Trump frightens the Republican elite both because he is uninformed and unpredictable, but also because he is in many respects the least conservative of the conservatives.
I am endorsing Secretary Clinton for President, not out of rote loyalty to the Clintons (as I endorsed Barack Obama in 2008), but instead my choice is guided by finding the candidate that best represents Democratic ideals.
For your amusement and mine, this being an all-fun-all-the-time election campaign, let's examine the relationships between our twenty-first-century plutocrats and the contenders who have raised $5 million or more in individual contributions or through super PACs and are at 5 percent or more in composite national polls.
In a new report, "How the Sanders Social Security is Not Progressive," Third Way is warning the electorate that Sanders is coddling the rich. Sanders, who daily attacks the "billionaire class," is proposing to benefit the rich at the expense of the rest of us? Sound preposterous? That is because it is. Let's examine the facts.
FDR's presidency ended in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, and Reagan has ruled ever since. As we face another potentially epoch-shifting presidential election, perhaps we would do well to remember that last one.
A bunch of people seem to be saying that it doesn't matter for policy outcomes if Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton is elected President. The rough claim seems to be: Republicans are going to control the House anyway, if not the Senate, so a Democratic President won't be able to do anything anyway.
But what does it say about the United States if its citizens are afraid to vote for a candidate because they don't believe their government will allow the leader of the free world to address the biggest domestic problems it faces?