The Democratic Party is part of the system. They and the Republicans are about nothing so much as preserving that system. In other words, they are about maintaining the status quo, or if pushed, tweaking it around the margins in order to preserve it. When you vote for either wing of The Money Party, whether Democrat or Republican, you are embracing that status quo and the path it has us on.

Some people say that the system is corrupt. But it isn’t that the system is corrupt, it’s that corruption is the system.

As far as which Democratic candidates would have been any different from Obama, and remembering that every one of them is part of the system, the answer is…any of them. None would have been so effective at neutering Democratic/liberal/progressive opposition as Obama has been. But here’s the real kicker…

With a Democratic house and senate, the most progressive outcome likely would have been to elect the Republican. Doesn’t matter which one. And the reasons are multiple. First, any Republican that wanted to get anything done at all would have had to work with those Dems. Second, those Dems and the entire liberal/progressive block would have maintained their opposition to the kinds of Republican policies that have been adopted by Obama, whereas under Obama, as I already said, that opposition was effectively neutered.

Regardless of any of that, the question isn’t which Dem would have been different. The question is why vote for the status quo which both the Democratic and Republican wings of The Money Party represent? You don’t get change by voting for same.