Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton had a series of momentous exchanges Thursday night over what Clinton called Sanders’ “artful smear” — the suggestion that taking massive amounts of money from corporate special interests had corrupted her.
Clinton told Sanders during Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate that he would not find a single example of money changing her mind or her vote, and she attacked him for his criticism “by innuendo, by insinuation” that “anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought.”
Sanders responded by citing examples of political and prosecutorial decisions in the recent past that couldn’t really be explained any other way.
Let’s talk about why, in the 1990s, Wall Street got deregulated. Did it have anything to do with the fact that Wall Street provided — spent billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions?
Well, some people might think, yeah, that had some influence.
(LAUGHTER)
Let’s ask why it is that we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, and [the price of] your medicine can be doubled tomorrow, and there’s nothing that the government can do to stop it. …
Let’s talk about climate change. Do you think there’s a reason why not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real, and that we need to transform our energy system? Do you think it has anything to do with the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil pouring huge amounts of money into the political system?
That is what goes on in America. I am not — I like …
(APPLAUSE)
… There is a reason. You know, there is a reason why these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. And in my view, it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country.
Clinton said she herself had been the target of corporate interests:
I don’t think you could find any person in political life today who has been subjected to more attacks and had more money spent against her by special interests, among whom you have named a few, than I.
And I’m proud of that. You know, when I took on the drug companies and the insurance companies for universal health care coverage, they went after me with a vengeance.
Today, you’ve got hedge fund billionaires aligned with Karl Rove, running ads against me to try to get Democrats to vote for you. I know this game. I’m going to stop this game.
And she insisted that Wall Street was against her:
I think the best evidence that the Wall Street people at least know where I stand and where I have always stood is because they are trying to beat me in this primary. They have collected and spent as much as $6 million on these ads. Hedge fund billionaires, Karl Rove, another billionaire, jumped in.
And why are they doing that? These are guys who try to make smart investments. They know my record, they know me, they know that I say what I believe and I will do it. And I also have a pretty good understanding about how to stop them.
But as the Washington Post reported on Thursday, “donors at hedge funds, banks, insurance companies and other financial services firms had given at least $21.4 million to support Clinton’s 2016 presidential run — more than 10 percent of the $157.8 million contributed to back her bid.” In fact, the Post even noted that Hillary Clinton has now “brought in more money from the financial sector during her four federal campaigns than her husband did during his quarter-century political career.”
Sanders hasn’t directly accused Clinton of being corrupted, but his argument is essentially that no one is incorruptible — that no one could take millions of dollars in contributions and speaking fees from Wall Street and not be influenced by that.
By giving just 12 speeches to Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations, Clinton made $2,935,000 from 2013 to 2015 — more than many people earn in a lifetime.
In all, she and her husband have collected over $125 million in speaking fees since 2001. They’ve also raised $2 billion for the Clinton Foundation.
More recently, Hillary Clinton’s affiliated Super PAC has depended on the extraordinary largess of billionaires: George Soros gave Priorities USA $7 million last year, pro-Israel billionaire power couple Haim and Cheryl Saban each gave $2.5 million, as did financiers Donald Sussman and Herbert Sandler.
Clinton didn’t necessarily say that money has no influence on anyone, she said it has no influence on her.
But the obvious, inevitable influence of massive campaign donations in particular has been a central element of Sanders’ campaign. And he’s had extraordinary success in collecting small donations — averaging $27 — from millions of supporters, keeping him competitive with Clinton and her more deep-pocketed donors.
Clinton’s relationship with Goldman Sachs has become a particular flashpoint. Clinton was asked Thursday night if she would release the transcripts from her private, highly paid speeches there — and elsewhere. She demurred.
Clinton made $675,000 for three speeches to Goldman Sachs, an investment bank that has regularly used its influence with government officials to win favorable policies.
Sanders had a lot to say about Wall Street in general, and Goldman Sachs in particular:
Wall Street is perhaps the most powerful economic and political force in this country. You have companies like Goldman Sachs, who just recently paid a settlement fine with the federal government for $5 billion for defrauding investors.
Goldman Sachs was one of those companies whose illegal activity helped destroy our economy and ruin the lives of millions of Americans. But this is what a rigged economy and a corrupt campaign finance system and a broken criminal justice is about. These guys are so powerful that not one of the executives on Wall Street has been charged with anything after paying, in this case of Goldman Sachs, a $5 billion fine.
Kid gets caught with marijuana, that kid has a police record. A Wall Street executive destroys the economy, $5 billion settlement with the government, no criminal record. That is what power is about. That is what corruption is about. And that is what has to change in the United States of America.
Related:
- Hillary Clinton Won’t Say if She’ll Release Transcripts of Goldman Sachs Speeches
- Top Hillary Clinton PAC Donation Amounts to 222,000 Bernie Sanders Donations
- Hillary Clinton Laughs When Asked if She Will Release Transcripts of Her Goldman Sachs Speeches
- Hillary Clinton Made More in 12 Speeches to Big Banks Than Most of Us Earn in a Lifetime
- Hillary Clinton’s Single-Payer Pivot Greased by Millions in Industry Speech Fees
Hillary claims that we will never find where her vote had changed. Well, it doesn’t take long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RokOLdsZLgQ
The attention is on pinning the speaking fee and donations to the candidate for votes. Considering the timing and the impossibility of any changes occurring during an election, this focus strikes me as meaningless or at best thin criticism. (What happens to the get money out of politics movement if Bernie or Trump win or lose? Does defeat or the reality of the job description nullify the influence of the leaders and therefore the movement?)
Danger from the Middle East has been used as an excuse to make many changes in this country that progressives and conservatives (who aren’t politicians) do not support. Some people feel our interest in maintaining these policies are influenced by money too. What does Sanders or any candidate have to say about our endless despair-creating, financially draining, interventionist and paranoid policies of regime change in the Middle East?
I’ll add that it would be great to hear what the candidates think about Timber Sycamore:
“Under the deal, current and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the C.I.A takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=1
Because its sounds like the CIA or at least elements of it are working for Saudi Arabia. But since so much of the intelligence and defense has been privatized what can Americans or even the POTUS say or do about the private arrangements of business partners?
Amazing. Hillary is above the influence of big money. Who knew?
Even if I didn’t like Bernie Sanders, I would still be thrilled by the way the success of his campaign has exposed all kinds of fissures that had never had a klieg light shined on them before. Watching pollsters, pundits, and smug people from all walks of life Flip Their Lids has been delightful.
Also @DougSalzmann:
While I did link to my own post, it constitutes fact. Fact, Doug. And yes, I did indeed catch you — lying about Sanders’ votes.
Yes, I am. Because far fewer babies would be bombed under a Sanders Administration than in either a Hillary or GOP one. Moreover, Sanders, as a Jewish man who spent time on a kibbutz, can do what Hillary never would: he can tell Benjamin Netanyahu to go fuck himself.
Do I know Sanders would do that? Not at all. But I know he could more easily than anyone else. (Just as only Nixon could go to China.) And he might — many liberal Zionists detest Netanyahu.
Moreover, Sanders could well be preparing the way for a huge revolt and reconfiguration of the Democratic Party. A reconfiguration I fully support. He’s the left Reagan; changing the narrative and terms of discussion.
That you see no point to this, that you see the system as irredeemably corrupt, is a defensible POV. But I expect you to be honest about what and whom you are rejecting — and I will expose your dishonesty here every time.
Doug: ” So you’re willing to vote for a baby bomber, because he’s the least-bad baby bomber in the race?”
Mona: “Yes, I am. Because far fewer babies would be bombed under a Sanders Administration than in either a Hillary or GOP one.”
I don’t know what to say, Mona, except this: As far as I’m concerned, that makes you, morally and ethically, an accessory before the fact to baby bombing. I think you should be deeply ashamed of yourself and go somewhere and sit quietly for a while, reviewing your “principles.”
I also, notice that you haven’t bothered to respond to the detailed list of Bernie’s, votes I posted, choosing only to tell me that “other good liberals” also voted against funding to close Gitmo and reiterating Glenn’s apologia. Who’s dishonest or distorting the record here?
Further, your responses to all of this have been increasingly emotional, albeit wrapped in a phony layer of pretend reason. I’m finished with you. I think you’re verging on the hysterical and I don’t have enough time for your unfounded attacks and your refusal to face reality.
Doug, you did not reply to the post below, showing how grossly you lied about Sanders’ Gitmo vote. Repeatedly, I have refuted your claims with hard facts. And you reply with vitriol, sermons, and accusation that *I* am emotional, hysterical & etc.
You, Doug, are not in a position to have your judgment respected, including your assessment that I am “an accessory before the fact to baby bombing.” Because, you are a liar.
Ignore me as you please. But I shall continue to debunk you, which is very easy to do. You spew manifest lies and can be impeached with the few clicks of a mouse.
@DougSalzmann, you continue to utterly misrepresent Sanders’ voting record. Let’s look at what you said here:
Not just Bernie Sanders, but also Sen. Russ Feingold. As Glenn wrote in 2012, civil libertarian senators voted against that bill because it seemed intended to establish “Gitmo North” in the U.S. The ACLU condemned the plan.
Glenn quoted Feingold at length, Glenn’s emphasis:
At the time, Glenn was writing to debunk the Obama Administration’s disingenuous use of Feingold and other Democratic senators’ votes. It obviously had nothing to do with the Sanders’ candidacy, of which there was not yet even a hint.
You, Doug, are either dishonest, or so grossly reckless with the facts as to be functionally so.
“Sanders hasn’t directly accused Clinton of being corrupted”
That’s the thing–you don’t buy politicians to change their minds, you support a politician’s career because you know that he or she thinks just like you do. If you bought a politician to change their mind you’d always have to worry about being out-bid and the politician changing their mind again.
More Legacy From the Office of President Obama:
‘I’ll bring back waterboarding. I’ll bring back something a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.’ *Trump, Presidential Debates 2/6/16
She (Clinton) ask for it and he (Sanders) should have let her have it. Everyone agrees that Citizens United amounts to legalized corruption so there should be question that anyone on the take including a “woman” running to be the first “woman” president (note the redundancy) is by definition “corrupt”. Clinton’s “how-dare-you” outrage with a gasp and bulging eyes was worthy of a silent-film actress.
I find it odd that it appears that Intercept authors are pro-sanders..
Considering this publication is known for truth speaking – it’s kinda sad.
Please explain. How has Sanders lied about anything? And if you’re going to attempt to claim that Hillary isn’t corrupt, please provide proof.
The Intercept tells the truth. If that’s unpleasant for Team Hillary, too bad.
Good read, little light on substance but not totally off the mark: Smash Clintonism
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/05/smash-clintonism-why-democrats-not-republicans-are-the-problem/
The big news is that Iran is going to dump the dollar for selling their oil, thanks to their friendship with a belligerent Russia. We need to discourage them by showing them the lessons of history in Iraq, Libya and Syria, beginning with tender affection.
The Iranians are crafty people. It won’t be easy to use the ruse that we used against the others. Maybe we can get Israel to make the first move and then we follow through. Our main worry is Putin – he plays political chess better than Kasparov.
Sorry but this is not the Vote for Marco Rubio website.
Your talents are wasted on analyzing reality, involving humans. But I bet you are, or would be, really good at Avalon Hill board games. Channel that energy.
Bernie on War & Peace, mostly from VoteSmart, with frequent reference to congress.gov:
I could go on, and I’m sure I will, but that’s it for now.
Bernie Sanders is a very crooked fellow in sheep’s clothing. He will be a lot worse than Barak Obama were we to vote for hope and change once again. The only guy who speaks from his mind is Donald Trump. I can’t say he is good, but at least he does not have a history of telling lies that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both have.
Link after link, you are high-centered on the information highway.
As Mona points out, you are “functionally … dishonest”.
Bernie Sanders has already won. Initially, his goal was to give rise to the issues he felt were truly important to our democracy and its people.
He said he would only run, if after other candidates entered the race those issues were not front and center.
Through his own courage and leadership, we all witnessed the Clinton machine being dressed down (Bernie style of course) on national TV.
This is a seminal moment in politics. Mr. Sanders is the right messenger for the bare truths to be laid out. He will not waiver.
His opponent won’t waiver either; she can’t. Just as Mr. Sanders is an authentic man of the people, Hillary Clinton is a dyed in the wool, win at all costs, self-serving politician.
Thanks to the leadership and indefatigable deportment of Mr. Sanders, these points are all on clear display.
Gee, I thought Citizens United, corporate lobbyists and campaign finance abuse was a huge problem that had a tremendous distorting effect. But now Hillary says huge donations from the plutocrats and the banksters have no effect whatsoever. Oh, just on her. She’s the exceptional politicial. The shining city on a hill. So, we’ll have to put in a Clinton corollary to any Constitutional amendment banning money in politics on the bases of their incorruptibility.
Well there is that small issue of the bankruptcy law that she quashed as FLOTUS and then voted in favor of once she was Senator Clinton, and accepting contributions from Big banks…
Howard Zinn (1922-2010) wrote:
Careful! Sanders signals left but turns right.
Sanders and the left feint in capitalist politics
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/06/pers-f06.html
recommended:
The Problem of Bernie Sanders and the “Left”
http://blackagendareport.com/bernie_sanders_and_the_left
Excellent piece.
BAR is outstanding and she’s almost always a good read.
Thanks.
All the charlatans running for POTUS, i.e., auditioning to be the administrator of the capitalist-imperialist system, are corrupt.
Hear that, Sandernistas? That’s the sound of your stupid fantasies bursting.
Your Savior isn’t.
After Oval Office meeting, Sanders lauds Obama legacy
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/27/after-oval-office-meeting-sanders-lauds-obama-legacy/79408950/
What would a Sanders administration likely bring about?
The continued acceptance of rightwing policies by pseudoleftists (that is, self-described liberals, progressives, and Democratic partisans).
See Greenwald’s article here:
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/
see also:
Obama’s Legacy: Permanent War and Liberal Accommodation?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/18/obamas-legacy-permanent-war-and-liberal-accommodation/
I’ve noticed that you certainly love babbling on to yourself. But…oh, look…you fill yourself with pablum and love to share! Charming.
Since open revolt would be severely and swiftly crushed, what options do you put forward as possible solutions. Many of us have all but given up on our political charade if not given up completely. I’m all ears if you have a plan forward that doesn’t involve taking up arms.
You’re right, violent open revolt would be instantly obliterated. But there are revolutions that are entirely beyond the Big System’s control and also beneath its notice.
Work locally to build pockets of sensible, sustainable and equitable society. It may be at the level of your town government or it may be as small as a block, a cluster of homes or businesses, a workers’ collective or a co-op. We can still make effective change in that way, but the state, federal and international organizations and the global finance-industrial are beyond reach and out of control. They are also moving closer and closer to disaster and disintegration, of their own accord in also in accordance with the immutable laws of physics.
There is absolutely no excuse or basis for optimism that the existing system is going to be “fixed” by any action of the ruling elite or their sock puppets — and that definitely includes Bernie Sanders. Forget about ’em. Hang with your neighbors. And try to undermine belief in this vile and silly mess of a culture at every opportunity.
“Turn on, tune in, drop out.” No drugs required, but hey, feel free . . .
I liked this, Doug. Much more substantive. I respect sincere pessimism. Are you a reader of Schopenhauer by any chance? I had a history teacher who, when we were reading him, pointed out that one good thing about pessimists is that they never lead you into the trenches to die in wars. Optimists, on the other hand, send people to wars all the time.
On the other hand, I don’t respect the bit about “undermine belief in this vile and silly mess of a culture” because you act like you are not part of that culture —– sorry, Doug, you are not that original: you come from the culture, you do not transcend it. You still express the notion that we are all dumb enough to expect that “the existing system is going to be fixed” rather than merely improved. If you want to, you can claim that people supporting the Sanders candidacy are all deluded fools expecting utopia — it is mostly a boring and self-serving fantasy of superiority, but I’m sure some of his supporters are gullible (no kidding).
Me, I will be happy with mere improvement. Mere rolling back of some of the ridiculous consequences of the post-Reagan era will suit me fine. I am not looking for a blood soaked revolution, for the destruction of the present order. I want relatively minor change, in the grand scheme of things.
I will not be rooting for the demise of everything, given that the most brutish forces will be happy to step into the breach of power. This is why I have never supported libertarianism: all it proposes to improve human freedom is the removal of government power, as if “government” were the only source of power, and wealth and commercial control were incidental, and we’d “all” be more free if only the government were reduced in power. Well, that’s not how it would work. Libertarianism is government by corporation.
As for anarchism, well, they’ve never even gotten to the point of explaining how the hell they would fill in the power vacuum that would result if they ever got their way. Like conspiracy theorists asked to supply motives, I doubt they have thought that far ahead.
“Me, I will be happy with mere improvement.”
That’s what incrementalists and lesser-of-two-evils voters have been telling me for decades . . . as the situation steadily worsens.
Anyway, you’re not going to get your mere improvement. “The system” is on the verge of collapse and nothing can prevent it — it’s too late.
I = P * A * T
Look it up, learn what it means, abandon your false hope.
As for most of your other nonsensical arguments, I really can’t be bothered, right now. But this one caught my attention:
“As for anarchism, well, they’ve never even gotten to the point of explaining how the hell they would fill in the power vacuum that would result if they ever got their way.”
This is, effectively, a display of deep ignorance on the subject. There are, quite literally, centuries of significant and important literature on the subject that you have clearly never read and probably don’t even know about.
Your reference to a “power vacuum” reveals that you don’t even know the meaning of the word “anarchism” — in any of its many forms and branches.
This is merely anecdotal evidence, but I don’t trust anybody I have ever met (in person or online) who claims to want a revolution. The lack of care about how many people would get killed in such an effort, and the lack of concern over whether such an effort would lead to a tyranny making the current unsatisfactory situation look like a utopia, usually shows in their eyes (or in their prose).
Also: the idea that this person talking revolution is in a position to lead anybody else. Um, I’ll usually regretfully take the soulless bureaucrat over that person, if that’s the choice. Of course that is NOT the choice —- most of the people who talk revolution that I have ever met couldn’t lead a tour group, much less a coup.
I don’t mind that Doug assigns me to the history of incrementalism. In many ways, I am essentially conservative. There is a huge difference between conservative and reactionary. American so-called conservatives turned into reactionaries some time between Reagan and Gingrich. Reactionaries are innovative: claiming to bring things back to the way they were before, they invent completely new systems of oppression. Actual conservatives want to keep some things from before, which is why they have no comfortable place in either party. Bernie Sanders is conservative in this sense. The current Republican party and also the neo-lib Democrats are innovative: they support things that have never happened before: intellectual property on a scale undreamt of by the grandfather of totalitarianism himself, Plato: corporate control of all life, right down to patenting genes. Ownable ideas. Every child born into unrepayable debt, just by thinking, just by being, just by eating. It’s the most glorious dream of capitalism ever. You bet I favor incremental actions against — as opposed to the TOTALLY NOT EVEN REMOTELY HAPPENING PURIST RESISTANCE because IT IS NOT HAPPENING>>>> if it is, let me know. I’ll try to convince them to also support a bit of incremental resistance, too. It’s too important to keep theoretical.
Doug, I haven’t read the “centuries of significant and important literature on the subject” of anarchism. You, I take it, have. You COULD, if you wanted to do more than just act superior on a comments page, say more than merely “I’ve read it and you have not.” This is the response that justifiably gets ridiculed as “hipster.” You should want people to see these great things you have seen rather than keeping them to yourself. You should want to convey them, not hide behind them as some kind of secret knowledge the stupid other people are not ready for.
I don’t see, and never have seen, how anarchism is supposed to come to pass — I don’t see how the powerful give up power without some other evil fuckers coming in and snatching that power. How does that happen? I’ve always wanted to know. I don’t believe it is impossible — I just haven’t seen how it is supposed to happen.
Apparently centuries of writing have explained it, as you say. If you are really serious about it, you could share it. If not with me, think of the others reading here.
He needs the black vote.Pragmatism.
To my mind, all the known (i.e. televised) American presidential candidates have far more in common politically and economically than they do differences, and far more differences than they do commonalities to the majority of Americans: for surely none among them is expecting to retire or has retired with no less than a few millions in ‘the bank’ (and in the case of the Clintons, etc., clearly much more)…There are no true (i.e. inimical to the regime) leftists allowed even remotely near the physical proximity of the politically debased debates, only servitors, in one form or another, of American private corporatism, public-private militarism, or international ‘Wall Streetism’–all permutations of a highly perverse form of inegalitarian capitalism (one still hardly seen in Western Europe) that engenders a far stronger and more virulent orientation towards civic and economic separatism/’segregationism’ among the rich and upper middle class than is currently the case in ‘socialist’ Western Europe. And yet not every homme or femme moyenne is a non-intellectual loser or toxic personality type, meriting nothing more from the likes of Cruz or the Clintons than transparently veiled distaste, disdain, and seigneurial noblesse oblige of the, to be sure!, meritocratic sort.
Since its foundations the U.S. was designed as a polity of and for the protestant merchant rich and this has extended to the present in its seemingly galactic (“too big to fail”) iteration of Wall Streetism (which of course the main Republican contenders and Hillary Clinton supremely embody), which is proceeding at a whirlwind pace to undo the egalitarian and democratic advances of the postwar years (the ascent of political correctness notwithstanding) and permanently restore the ancien régime of the American Gilded Age under the guise of meritocratic new age utopianism: i.e. a utopianism built on, over, and to conceal the ever-extending derelictive or intentional ‘gutterization’ of America created by its expressly and intrinsically unequal model of monetarily-convertible capital generation, separation, and accumulation–the rest is the self-serving and systemic propaganda of the Clintonian or Cruzian variety to justify this massively expropriative and marginalizing for the majority (again “too big to fail” and the ensuing oligarchist coup de main bailout [and jail-in of the economic system]) and hyper-iniquitous system this perfidy augurs as the permanent end (of democratic political and economic) history for all but the one percent (and their ten percent servitors) of Americans. And ultimately why? Because power is not power if it is diffuse, indeed it is diffused in its effects, and societal confusion allegedly asserts itself as in the ’60s and ’70s “crisis of democracy,” when the U.S. polity was alleged by ‘very serious’ anti-Communist personages to have been suffering from a pernicious “excess” of the same. Wall Streetism is there to Trumpishly wall off that parlous fate from ever befalling the U.S. again.
I watched Hillary Clinton trying to make her escape from Iowa after she and her “team” realized that the results would be a dead heat between her and Sanders.
All I saw was Hillary blaying her bullshit with her aged rapist husband behind her occasionally biting his lip (as he is wont to do) and thinking, “This is how Juanita Broadwick must have felt after Bill Clinton raped her and bit her lip when she left the room and he said, “Better get some ice on that lip.”
Then I looked at Chelsea Clinton next to the duo and thought of Web Hubbell, Hillary Clinton’s law partner in Little Rock while Bill was out frolicking with this one and that one, and I wondered at Webb Hubbell’s latest comment on whether or not he is Chelsea’s biological father and he said, “No comment.” (Look at the pictures. They speak for themselves).
Hillary and Bill Clinton’s legacy is one of trickery, fraud and deceit whether on a local or global scale. From Yugoslavia to Ukraine to Iraq to Libya.
Whether the “Clinton Dynasty” or the “Bush Dynasty”.
ALL MUST BE REJECTED.
My, my, MY! And the Clintons probably use the toilet too! DISgusting.
AND yet Bill’s perceived worth to Hillary’s campaign is to draw in the female vote via his sex appeal. So-much-so in fact that Trump has decided to adopt a counter-strategy whereby Bill Clinton’s sexcapades become a liability to Hillary.
As a woman, can you explain why women could still be so attracted to a “rapist.”
Hillary Clinton is CORRUPT??!!
Gag…Hack….Phephed….Coughedddd….PHLepeed….Blapsheddd……
Kapt…..Kapt!!….Blaphahapedttteddd!!!!……
Corrupt?!
No! Not even!!
HRC= POS
I almost choked/gagged last night when I heard Chuck Todd? or Rachel Maddow ask Hillary Clinton the question:
“You have made many paid speeches for multiple thousands of dollars to Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Walmart etc. There are transcripts/videos of these speeches. Would you now say that all the transcripts of these speeches should be made PUBLIC?”
And Hillary Clinton’s answer: “Well, I would have to look into that.”
RE…HALLEY….??!!
IF she wants to be the most TRANSPARENT candidate for president (after all…she is all into releasing all of her email exchanges!), then obviously she should want to release ALL the transcripts of her speeches before ALL the various corporations she went before…..right??
But, what did she say in the debate?
“Well, I will have to look into that…..”.
I am calling out BULLSHIT on Hillary Clinton.
Because. She. Is. Bull. Shit.
And that’s the TRUTHSSMSMMish!!!! (Ala’ Emily Litella SNL):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYoNL4g5Vg
People who wear glass slippers shouldn’t throw stones.
test
http://www.ibtimes.com/who-won-msnbc-democratic-presidential-debate-clinton-delivers-strong-performance-2295085
http://gawker.com/did-hillary-clinton-win-the-debate-1736498207
Testing.
Quick, who said it?
http://www.ibtimes.com/who-won-msnbc-democratic-presidential-debate-clinton-delivers-strong-performance-2295085
Why The International Business Times, of course.
Once you read the article (but who does with an opening like that?) you see an on-line poll by Time which gave it to Bernie 90/10.
Seattle’s NBC affiliate poll gave it to Sanders 70/30.
I haven’t found a poll which gives Hillary a win.
Gawker agrees.
http://gawker.com/did-hillary-clinton-win-the-debate-1736498207
Here’s a scathing takedown of Hillary Clinton by a self-described feminist–Liza Featherstone:
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-this-socialist-feminist-is-not-voting-for-hillary/
Glenn’s quoted her a few times on Twitter so thought people might be interested.
Quick, who said it?
Why The International Business Times of course.
Once you read the article (but who does with an opening like that?) you see an on-line poll by Time which gave it to Bernie 90/10.
Seattle’s NBC affiliate poll gave it to Sanders 70/30.
I haven’t found a poll which gives Hillary a win.
Gawker agrees.
http://gawker.com/did-hillary-clinton-win-the-debate-1736498207
My comment is only visible in “latest”. It doesn’t appear in “Threads”
@Doug Salzman
You’ve previously posted some misleading material on Bernie Sanders, claims that are so incomplete they almost rise to the level of lies. Specifically, you grossly misrepresented his position on the Iraq war and his votes that involved funding that war.
And, you disparage his “bumbling” foreign policy, apparently more impressed with the experienced Hillary Clinton whose policy decisions are usually disastrous and blood-soaked.
Doug, here’s some news for you: most people here, and certainly the writers at The Intercept, are fully aware of Bernie Sanders’ deficiencies, i.e., his semi-hawkishness and defense of Israel’s atrocities in Gaza. We are not infants here.
But, unlike Obama in ’08, Sanders has a long, long public record of consistent, usually principled positions he has not betrayed. This we all also know.
So Doug, if you want to continue trashing the writers and commenters here, you had better improve your understanding of both Bernie Sanders’ career, as well as the intelligence of those of us at whom you are spewing contempt.
“. . .long, long public record of consistent, usually principled positions he has not betrayed.”
If his “principles” (and yours, Mona?) allow for targeted killings by drone, the area bombing of Yugoslavia, overlooking or mildly disapproving the brutal oppression and near-genocide of the Palestinians, just what sort of “principles” are they?
And why would they deserve anything less than contempt?
“. . . usually principled positions . . .”
Emphasis mine.
Once again, the latter portion of Jeremy Brecher’s “Dear Bernie” resignation letter:
My god, Doug, you are right. Sanders does have “principled positions”.
He voted NO on the invasion of Iraq. That makes Jeremy’s letter appear rather silly but then you posted it, too.
“He voted NO on the invasion of Iraq. That makes Jeremy’s letter appear rather silly but then you posted it, too.”
What does his initial No vote on the Iraq invasion have to do with Jeremy’s letter or Bernie’s Yes vote on bombing Yugoslavia?
Or do you, like Bernie, think bombing Yugoslavia was justified?
Jeremy’s letter, which you somehow think bolsters a position, asks this question:
And the answer is yes, there is a limit. That is what Sanders’ initial NO vote on Iraq means.
“. . . if you want to continue trashing the writers and commenters here, you had better . . .”
I beg your pardon? I “had better” follow your instructions? Has Glenn or someone else appointed you arbiter of acceptable speech here?
If not: Fuck off.
If so: Identify the source of your authority so I can tell them/her/him to fuck off by name.
Doug, I don’t know what has overtaken you, but you are behaving like a shit, you really are. You’re posting highly misleading material about Bernie Sanders; you ignore the myriad of highly commendable positions Bernie Sanders takes and has always taken and from which he has never wavered; and you also ignore that, notwithstanding his foreign policy sins, he is far far better in that area than anyone else running in either party. And, you are hurling lots of crap about the others in this comemtns section.
Your ranting is unmerited. It is more than proper for me — or anyone else — to tell you that, and has nothing to do with my being an “arbiter of acceptable speech.” Rather, it has everything to do with your sour and unpleasant — and ill-informed — tirades about others.
You are the last person here who should be speculating about telling anyone else to “fuck off.”
“You’re posting highly misleading material about Bernie Sanders. . .”
Cite an instance when I did that, Mona. Be specific.
” . . .your sour and unpleasant — and ill-informed — tirades about others.”
Show me an example of such a post that wasn’t simply a response to insulting or abusive posts directed at me.
BTW, Mona, you haven’t answered my question:
Here’s where I catch you grossly distorting Bernie Sanders Iraq-war funding votes. And I’ve already told you that I and others are fully aware of, and critical of, Bernie Sanders positions on Gaza and militarism; again, he’s far better in that area than anyone else running.
Doug, you are being most unreasonable in your approach to those who disagree with you that Bernie Sanders is unalloyed evil. For whatever reason, on this topic you lose all judgment and even resort to dishonesty about Sanders’ record.
Hi Mona
There was a lot of self-delusion by voters on the left about “progressive” Obama making a much needed break from our ugly foreign policies in 2008.
The actual results… wars, drones, NSA, etc… have weighed very heavily on many on the left.
I think DS feels obligated to ensure that we all go into this election with our eyes wide open to the realities of Bernie’s fairly establishment foreign policies.
His approach gets under my skin sometimes too, but he has also said things along the lines that Bernie could be the best president we’ve had in generations, and that his domestic policies are far superior to any of the other major party candidates.
It is also true that TI never mentions Jill Stein who has a far less establishment foreign policy… one that is much more in line with the truly progressive views underlying much of what TI’s coverage is all about.
Look, I’m all about Bernie.
But I can’t fault Doug’s anti-empire purity.
And, I think Bernie supporters can handle the reality checks DS is putting out there, and maybe, just maybe, together we can exert a little pressure to make Bernie an even better candidate.
Or, on the flipside, this knowledge can also be used to temper the far more ridiculous screams of “radical” by Bernie’s establishment critics.
I agree that dishonest attacks would serve nobody well.
Anyway, I hope you don’t mind me jumping into the middle here.
Go Bernie!
A
That would be fine if that’s what Doug was doing, but it isn’t. Grossly misleading bullshit about Bernie Sanders does not constitute a “reality check.” Neither does this constant trashing of the commenters here who do support Bernie.
Doug has previously claimed that Bernie “pretended” to oppose the Iraq war. His supposed evidence for this was a very short Michael Arria post on Bernie’s war-funding votes that even on its own terms did not support Doug’s claim. And on its own terms was so misleading as to be a lie.
A number of people I respect won’t support Bernie for reasons of his foreign policy views, especially Israel-Palestine. But they don’t carry on with vitriolic irrationally about Bernie’s record as Doug does.
Reasonable people can disagree about supporting the Bernie Sanders candidacy; Doug is not being reasonable.
Thanks for the response Mona
I agree that fortune telling based on a voting record or quotes can be and often is misleading.
And DS does a fair amount of that.
The crystal ball crowd has never been very convincing though.
And, I still think we can handle it… and it looks like we’re going to need the practice debunking such nonsense… because Bernie just rocked New Hampshire and now we’ll be getting it from both sides.
A
Mona: “Here’s where I catch you grossly distorting Bernie Sanders Iraq-war funding votes.”
Nonsense. You link to your own post that constitutes apologia for Sanders’ votes and tell us “here’s where I catch you?”
“And I’ve already told you that I and others are fully aware of, and critical of, Bernie Sanders positions on Gaza and militarism; again, he’s far better in that area than anyone else running.”
So you’re willing to vote for a baby bomber, because he’s the least-bad baby bomber in the race?
I think we’ve established the limits of your principles, Mona.
Hey Doug do yourself a favor and just ignore Mona. Many of us want to hear what you have to say about Bernie Sanders. Although I currently favor Sanders over Clinton, I am not averse to considering his negatives. I see at least as much mindless support for Sanders as Obama enjoyed during the 2008 Presidential election and makes me sick – have we learned nothing from that folly? Just state the facts and those who are open to the truth will appreciate your efforts.
Thanks, Karl.
I’m used to being demonized for aggressively challenging “liberal” adoration for every purported savior who pops up: I was already used to it by the days of B. Clinton, followed by Al Gore, Hillary, Obama, and now Sanders. Mona’s reaction is exactly the sort of thing I’ve come to expect.
I’m afraid that, as I’ve grown older, I’ve become even less patient — and harsher — with the endless and bottomless capacity for self-delusion. I’m even rather mean, sometimes. But I try never to distort reality or speak or write lies. Mona is simply wrong about that. I do my homework.
See the list of Sanders votes I posted at the top of this stale thread.
My real goal is to encourage people to see that it is literally impossible for anyone not in bed with the establishment to get anywhere near the White House, and that anyone who has survived in the House and Senate as an “independent” for as long as Sanders has is certainly no exception. Why do you imagine that the Dems never run serious primary candidates against him?
Using logical fallacies to make your point is beneath you Dan…
1. Those are not Dan Froomkin’s words; he’s quoting Bernie Sanders.
2. No fallacy is present.
It took a moment but I think it’s snark.
He’s speaking of the fallacy of justice dispensed for the poor kid but not the rich and how dare Dan mention such.
1. Froomkin is citing a quote by Sanders in support of his own position
2. The measure of justice dispensed in either cited case is solely dependent upon the law that applies in each instance.
I guess I was too generous.
I have to ask, Karl, given your previous climate denial and related contrarianism, have you every used the screen name Bucky1 or Heru or Doug Salzmann?
Answering the charge of a logical fallacy with another logical fallacy (straw man) leads nowhere.
Contrarianism? Is that what you are calling skepticism these days?
Have you ever used the screen name Mona?
Have you ever argued against the idea of climate change?
Sure you have, with the same pathetic “skepticism”. Mona has pointed out that Grossly misleading bullshit about Bernie Sanders does not constitute a “reality check.”
It’s your MO and it plays poorly. You take cheap shots at TI staff, too, and display satisfaction in such.
Yawn! Using a pseudonym (alt avatar) to speak about yourself in the third person is fooling no one.
From the current print edition of The Nation, “? After I Lived in Norway, America Felt Backward. Here’s Why”, in which Hillary makes a comparison.
http://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/
Worth a read in general, but She doesn’t come off too well, certainly.
Hillary is a opportunistic lawyer. It’s pathological and Hillary is in stage 4. Monsanto manages Hillary. She was indispensable to Monsanto as Sec of State. Hillary will follow orders from whomever who has power over her and lead us all into oblivion. Control food. Control people.
file:///C:/Users/Jeff/Desktop/Land%20grab%20in%20Ukraine%20is%20Monsanto%E2%80%99s%20backdoor%20to%20the%20EU%C2%A0_%C2%A0Oriental%20Review.html
It’s pretty obvious that if it ends up a Sanders v. Trump presidential election, we will have two excellent choices, if it is anyone else, we are simply voting for the Koch brothers.
PERIOD!
Recommended Reading:
Dark Money, by Jane Mayer
A Warren interview with Bill Moyers give an example of one Clinton change of position:
http://billmoyers.com/2015/11/18/flashback-elizabeth-warren-tells-a-story-about-hillary-clinton-wall-street-and-lobbying/
Great read! I especially liked the last paragraph.
Hi, this is the actual Vic Perry, and I did not write the above comment.
If I had it would have gone: “So hey does anybody like to you know, eat peanuts?”
Clearly an imposter.
I am reminded of the old Texas quote from Jesse Unruh about lobbyists. “If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you’ve got no business being up here.” (Up here in politics). Hillary may not want to literally screw their women…
Have you heard of Goldman Sachs (or any Bank / Wall Street Firm) paying out millions for Elizabeth Warren speeches ??
The answer is NO!
Now why is that??
Take that same logic and apply it to The Clintons who have received millions from Wall Street Firms and Banks. Why is that??
Because, when the Clintons were in office, they couldn’t accept big money from Wall St firms etc because that would be outright bribery. Bill Clinton is VERY good at covering his tracks -one of the best. Bill & Hillary just did the bidding of corporations as President & president-in-waiting, while the corps just paid the bribes later -thinly veiled as “speaking fees”.
It’s the Washington D.C. way.
Same bullshit, different day.
Last night during the debate Hillary Clinton once again put forth the fiction that she is a “progressive” — odd, since she has acted and behaved and voted as a republicon ALL her life?
Hubby, Bill Clinton, is leading her cheering section, so let us revisit a few things about him on the easy to remember list.
When President Obama was running for reelection and ran several adverts attacking Romney’s business record, Billygoat Clinton came to Romney’s defense, saying that Mitt Romney “had a sterling business career”!!!!
Hillary, a self-described “progressive,” bragged about mass murderer Henry Kissinger praising her time as secretary of state. [To any hardcore bimbos out there who don’t realize this, Henry Kissinger is not a progressive! Got that?????]
During the Clinton Administration it was forbidden, verboten, to utter the phrase — corporate welfare — in public, or termination of employment/appointment would result!
Just dwell on that one for a moment . . . .
HRC’s professed dream is to be the first woman neocon president, but her secret dream has long been something even more bizarre:
To travel back in time during the sinking of the Titanic and to be in charge of the life preserver franchise aboard that fated vessel.
Tear down that wall of secrecy and opacity, Ms. Clinton, tear down that wall!
https://vimeo.com/152786370
Of course Hillary is corrupt. Why is this even a question?
Even though in this clip Sen. Warren comes off sounding like an HRC apologist, it is a bit of salacious info on HRC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=12mJ-U76nfg
Could foreign policy be Bernie Sanders’ undoing? Yes – if you believe the polls
Sanders appeared out of his depth when pressed in Thursday’s debate on foreign policy issues that polls suggest Americans are concerned about once more
~The Guardian — more at source
= = = = =
You see, warmongering, bloodthirsty Americans see Bernie as a peacenik (which he absolutely is not) and they see him stumbling and bumbling about matters of foreign policy, which is absolutely true.
If he doesn’t, soon, openly adopt the standard-issue aggressive militarism of the American tradition, will New Hampshire be his last big victory party (except for Vermont on Super Tuesday)?
If he does “assume the position,” what will happen to his idealistic base? Will they tell us that he’s just playing to the crowd and will reveal his true, peaceful character once in office (a tale told many times before)?
One of the main problems with the Guardian is their wholehearted endorsement of British-American foreign policy actions in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere. It’s just like the New York Times coverage of American and British claims about Saddam’s WMDs in 2002-2003 – unquestioning acceptance of the statements of ‘government sources’ by the likes of Ian Black and Luke Harding. Russia is the bogeyman, Saudi Arabia is our friend, etc. Non-stop parroting of the same neocon agenda Cheney promoted all the way back to 1998 – control of global oil flows with the cash to be deposited in London and New York banks, is what that’s always been about. It’s just tiresome and repetitive and – in the post Alan Rusbridger era – getting more pervasive, really that paper is becoming more like a standard American left-wing corporate media source – they’re very liberal on the standard fluff topics (gun control, abortion rights, etc.) but completely aligned with the apparatchiks and functionaries on foreign policy issues.
Notice also that the Guardian went along with the corporate media blackout in the U.S. on coverage of the TPP signing in New Zealand? Anyone posting about that on the Guardian, of course, would find their comments blocked and their account moved to ‘pre-moderation’ for ‘attacking the brand.’ Hilarious.
All true, but not very relevant in this case.
The referenced story is about Pew Foundation polling, and whatever else Pew may be, I’ve never seen any indication that its polling is other than straightforward. Besides, as a long-time observer of US politics, I’m quite certain that the Danger from Abroad ploy will be used mercilessly against Sanders, both in the primaries and in the general election, should he be the Dems’ nominee (still very unlikely, IMO). And I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if an opportune terrorist attack or other “foreign threat” materialized to be seized upon by the opposition.
And I’m quite sure that nothing sways American (or other national) opinion more rapidly and certainly than threats from abroad, real or imagined or manufactured.
Anyway, it really doesn’t matter much who wins the presidency. Nothing truly progressive will ever pass the institutionally regressive Congress and/or the stacked judiciary and all candidates, from both parties, are unapologetic American exceptionalists and warmongers, whether openly or slightly concealed.
~Doug (pre-moderated and banned by The Guardian more times than I can count)
Perhaps what you are saying is that the agenda of the federal executive bureaucracy is somewhat independent of whoever is elected to run it? That, as in Brezhnev’s Soviet Union, the real power lies in the hands of functionaries and apparatchiks who answer to the Soviet Central Committee (or in our case, Wall Street billionaires?).
However, you must be willing to admit that Clinton and Cruz are far more beholden to that Central Committee than Sanders and Trump are, and that this why the Central Committee’s pet media outlets (New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, MSNBC or FOX) are uniformly opposed to Sanders and Trump?
I.e. they don’t want independently minded outsiders coming to power, any more than Brezhnev’s circle wanted an independently minded guy like Gorbachev coming to power. However, as with the old Soviet Union, Central Committee rule is a disaster for the vast majority of the people in this country.
Another way out of the mess, for example the fundamental need to rebuild aging infrastructure in every state in this country, is for the states to gain direct control of more of the federal income tax pool, so that it doesn’t go to bloated military-industrial contracts, Saudi Royals, and the like, so that money can be used as needed, rather than for the benefit of Central Committee insiders (who all live in the Black Sea villa paradises while the rest of the country goes down the crapper)?
Of course, nobody in their right mind believes that Trump or Sanders will be a ‘savior’ but it’s very clear that Clinton or Cruz would give us just more of the same disastrous policies, no question about that, is there? The latter are utter tools of the Central Committee, by any rational measure.
The Guardian is also in the practice of trolling Jeremy Corbin.
For somebody who claims it doesn’t matter who is president, Doug sure posts a lot of arguments against one particular candidate for that office.
“Doug sure posts a lot of arguments against one particular candidate for that office.”
Only in forums where biased, ignorant and unthinking devotees of one candidate are congregated — and where the publisher appears to be running a barely-concealed journalistic campaign on that candidate’s behalf.
It’s a hobby.
Let’s speculate: what might Clinton have said during her Goldman Sachs speeches?
“I have worked hard behind the scenes to ensure the profitability of Goldman Sachs investment schemes – that’s why I refused to block the Keystone Pipeline as Secretary of State, because I knew that Goldman Sachs has huge investments in fossil fuels, and I want to do everything I can to keep this sector of the economy flush with cash, otherwise how could I pull down $9.5 million in speaking fees from you guys? Ha ha ha!”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/lawmakers-propose-bill-to-limit-fed-lending-goldman-commodities
Of course, Ted Cruz enjoys similar kickbacks from Goldman Sachs, like that big loan, although he is much closer to the Koch Brothers outfit, who kicked down $15 million to him, and, like Goldman, the Kochs have huge investments in fossil fuels, tar sands, etc.
If we also look at Warren Buffet’s support for Hillary Clinton, well, that’s the same Warren Buffet who control Nevada’s utility, who just maneuvered the Nevada government to block expansion of solar power in Nevada, and who is trying to sneak his coal-powered utility, Pacificorp, into the California energy market. That’s right in line with Hillary Clinton’s long-term support for the filthy polluting Alberta tar sands deals.
So when Hillary Clinton says she’s for reforming America’s energy system, slowing climate change, and expanding renewable energy – well, I just can’t believe what she says. And if she’s being dishonest about this, what else is she being dishonest about?
Here’s the bottom line, and me and others have brought this up before: as a legal matter if a corporate entity can’t justify it’s corporate expenditures for lobbying and campaign contributions to candidates as being a reasonable and necessary business expenses (specifically publically traded entities (although different for closely held entities or ones without shareholders)) they necessarily must expect in their reasonable business judgment to receive some benefit to the corporate entity’s profit maximization efforts.
If they don’t/can’t support that justification with facts sufficient to convince their shareholders they are receiving something of value (from “good will” to quid-pro-quo to favorable regulatory changes) they invite a shareholder derivative law suit for misuse of the entity’s funds. That’s the law with the exception of the few states that are starting to create things like B corps (benefit corps).
So to suggest that 1000s of publically traded entities shower American political candidates with incredible amounts of money in the form of campaign donations without expecting that they will be granted improved and persuasive access to influence an elected official’s decision making, and to the entity’s benefit, then they’d be getting sued left and right by their shareholders. That’s just a fact and the law.
That’s systemic institutionalized corruption. That’s what Bernie Sanders is talking about and the reality Clinton is trying to deny — “I can take all the money I want but I am incorruptible”. Which of course is absurd. It doesn’t work like some contractual in writing “direct quid-pro-quo of X dollars for X legislative outcome.”
How it works is improved access up to and including elected officials advancing “legislation” that is written, start to finish, by the donors and entity donor’s lobbyists, PACs, think tanks etc.
It works like Obamacare did which brought all the nominal “stakeholders” (but oddly excluding from any meaningful legislative input or participation the consumer, doctor or nurse organizations that wanted to influence the ACA toward single payer) and then they sit around an hash out “legislation” without “public” input. That’s how it works. That’s systemic institutionalized “corruption”. That’s what Bernie Sanders is talking about.
And the only elected officials who are immune are the ones who don’t take that money and don’t grant that “access” disproportionately to big donors.
Hillary Clinton is lying to the American public. More disturbingly she may be lying to herself which is a form of self-delusion that frightens me in a candidate for POTUS. Hopefully the American people are getting a little wiser about how this works in America.
There’s a reason that the supposed “greatest nation in the world” doesn’t even rank in the Top 10 of Least Corrupt Governments in the world. Its ranking is down in the high teens or low 20s if I remember the most recent rankings correctly.
Condense to a thirty or sixty second spot and you have something. I really like the shareholder aspect; there has to be some pro quo, otherwise the quid makes no sense.
I can’t stomach following this shit closely, but wasn’t there just a ruling about companies not needing to disclose these donations to their shareholders or maybe overturning shareholder, er, um referendums? (not what they call it) that require such disclosure?
Sorry… drawing a blank on the terminology…
A
So, if she’s elected, does this mean we can expect wars of passive aggression?
Innuendo and insinuation are awful. Karl Rove is spending a lot of money hoping my opponent defeats me.
Let us revisit the Clinton connection to big money http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/after-pardoning-criminal-marc-rich-clintons-made-millions-off-friends/
Wh not link to a fair and balanced outfit…like Fox News, Breitbart, or Stormfront?
I can’t believe how rich HRC is. And I keep getting emails in my inbox asking me for $1 and $3 donations. Like she needs my $1 or $3 more than I do? The Nerve!
Such absurd requests are narrative driven and not at all irrational. I have an idea for a fundraising letter to be sent to the little people:
Incremental Change!
Average people who can’t pony up at least 10 grand, please don’t ruin things sending me a $100. Please just send me $1 — and please, not more than $3 — my “average donation” amount will drop, and I could give a crap about your $100.
Bernie Sanders is claiming his average donation is $27. We can go lower! So send me money today! Only don’t send too much!! Divide your donation up into tiny little increments!!!
Incremental change!!! That’s what I’m promising — and it’s what I’d like to see from small donors too.
“Small change we can believe in.”
Brilliant!
Donations, Corruption…?
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Let’s drop a little “balance” into the ongoing TI4Bernie campaign.
* “Clinton puts Sanders on the defensive in heated Democrat debate” ~Guardian headline
* “Bernie Sanders sounded out of his depth on foreign policy during his first mano-a-mano debate with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire last night.” ~Washington Post
* “4. Bernie Sanders Stumbles Through Foreign Policy Answers”
“North Korea is a very strange situation because it is such an isolated country run by a handful of dictators — or maybe just one,” Sanders said, referring to Kim Jong Un and declining to name specifics. [Bernie’s response when Chuck Todd asked him to rank North Korea, Iran and Russia in order of their “threat to America”. ] ~ABC News
* “On foreign policy, Clinton once again showed fluency and mastery of the field, while Sanders seemed stuck in first gear. But once again he offered his oft-repeated point: She may have the experience, but I had the judgment to vote against the Iraq War.” ~NPR
* “[Clinton] essentially forced Maddow into this logical follow-up question: “Sen. Sanders, have you established a list of what it means to be a progressive that is unrealistic?”
Sanders said no, of course. Then Todd asked him whether President Obama meets Sanders’s progressive standard, since the two don’t align on every issue. Sanders ultimately arrived at a yes on Obama’s progressivism — but he needed a long rhetorical route to get there.
~WaPo again
* ” On Iraq/ISIS:
“SANDERS: ‘Let me agree with much of what the Secretary said, but where we have a different background on this issue is we differed on the war in Iraq which created barbaric organizations like ISIS…'” ~NBC News
hey Doug just proved something or other
So your point is that an independent media voice needs to be balanced out by the corporate, mainstream media? LOL. That’s rich. Oh, wait. It literally is rich. Ok, got it.
I just love watching the true believers freaking out whenever anyone questions the purity of the object of their adoration, or even hints that impurity might exist.
I did the same thing with B. Clinton, Gore, Obama, H. Clinton in 2008 . . . and got the same responses, including any number of former friends who still hate me because they blame me for Bush the Lesser’s 5-4 victory in 2000, or for calling Obama a wannabe war criminal in the summer of 2007.
You are all entirely predictable. And sadly pathetic in your self-delusion and utterly unrealistic hopes.
In any case, it hardly makes a dime’s worth of difference who sits in the Oval Office. The warmongering, the dominance of the greediest and wealthiest among us, the brain-dead consumerism and short-sighted devotion to self-interest is baked into our cultural cake and the vast majority of Americans have always accepted it without question — except for wanting larger slices of the cake for themselves.
The truth about last night’s debate is that Sanders came off as stumbling, unprepared, repetitive, poorly-informed on important subjects. . . and Clinton came off as the calculating, experienced, professional killer that she is. And it’s all a sideshow, circus entertainment for the benighted masses.
Oh Doug, I was just trying to coax you out from behind the cut-and-paste buttons. What you want to do is harangue everybody, again, to not care, because it’s all fixed and a big show, waaaaah.
Why exactly would you quote approvingly utterly conventional media wisdom on how Clinton comes across as all experienced on foreign policy and stuff, when you despise her foreign policy?
If you are going to throw poo all the time, (you aren’t very good at it, by the way, visit a good zoo and pick up some pointers) you could at least have the dignity of not contradicting yourself quoting total hacks to make your pointless points.
Oh, and your “I’m the only real realist around here” bit is identical to all the people who support Hillary Clinton. But see, you are different. We know, you and a few others see through the big charade, and you’ve probably been telling everybody about it since high school.
“What you want to do is harangue everybody, again, to not care, because it’s all fixed and a big show, waaaaah.”
Yes, Vic: “. . . it’s all fixed and a big show . . .” There is little question about it, as any serious reading of American history will reveal.
“Why exactly would you quote approvingly utterly conventional media wisdom on how Clinton comes across as all experienced on foreign policy and stuff, when you despise her foreign policy?”
You are, yet again, displaying your reading comprehension problem. How did you arrive at the conclusion that I “approved” any of the other views on the debate I quoted? It certainly wasn’t anything I said. I suspect that you somehow arrived at the conclusion that quoting other coverage to illustrate TI’s ongoing single-issue, one-sided coverage somehow, ipso facto, constitutes approval of those views. If I’m right, that suggests that you may be jumping to conclusions rather than “reading for meaning,” as we try to teach kids from elementary school on.
“We know, you and a few others see through the big charade, and you’ve probably been telling everybody about it since high school.”
That, also, is true. And, almost always, the responses are very much like yours. I’ve listened to 50 years of angry, defensive, defiant ignorance.
And look where your conventional views have taken us.
Wow, other papers wrote other things that were different than what the Intercept wrote. We had no idea, absolutely none. Good thing you were here to point that out with your awesome cutting and pasting skills.
Some people, when they cut and paste things, mean that as an endorsement. You, however, don’t. Possible confusions that might arise from such a practice are known as the reading comprehension problems of other people.
“. . . an independent media voice needs to be balanced out by the corporate, mainstream media?”
Do you really believe that a publication dependent upon the largesse of eBay founder Pierre Omidyar is truly independent?
Has Glenn told us how much corporate giant Sony paid him for the movie rights to the Snowden story, or what he is doing with that money?
Point us in the direction of some “truly independent media”, Doug, this is starting to sound like a Platonic ideal in your hands, such as “objective journalism”.
“Point us in the direction of some ‘truly independent media’ . . .”
Reading comprehension, again.
Why would you think that questioning the independence of TI, or any other media organization, implies that I think there is any “truly independent media” somewhere or anywhere?
You’ve set up a straw man argument and are challenging me to refute it.
You’re not nearly as good at this game as you think you are, Vic.
“Why would you think that questioning the independence of TI, or any other media organization, implies that I think there is any “truly independent media” somewhere or anywhere?”
Because you are the one who brought up the notion of truly independent media, based of course on your usual notion that the other readers here naively believe that The Intercept (and Bernie Sanders too) float on a cloud of perfection unconnected to the world, because we are all gullible morons unlike your hardboiled self.
….and it turns out you don’t have anything in mind specifically when it comes to the notion of truly independent media……so I was right: it’s a bullshit Platonic ideal you are trying to use to criticize real life activities when you don’t even have an alternative in mind.
Creating straw men? You have a cottage industry in their production.
You know, Vic, you are an unusually nasty piece of work.
I’m finished with you for now. We’ll leave it to others to evaluate this exchange.
I don’t happen to care who wins the Super Bowl, and as a result I also don’t spend time on sports story comment sites telling people not to root for the Panthers.
Doug, you claim “it hardly makes a dime’s worth of difference who sits in the Oval Office,” yet you show up thread after thread here to attack one particular candidate. If it really doesn’t matter, then you could probably be “finished” with more than just me.
No country is a serious threat to the US.
“No country is a serious threat to the US.”
Well, no country meaningfully threatens the US, although Russia would be a very serious and dangerous opponent should US provocation result in actual military conflict.
Notwithstanding the above:
1. What’s your point; and
2. Since no country is seriously threatening the US, what does it say about Sanders’ comprehension of geopolitics and balance of power that his answer to the question was to bumble on about North Korea and its dictator(s) (he didn’t seem certain how many there are)?
I believe your point is that the corporate media, owned and controlled by billionaire financiers (I mean, just go look them up on yahoo finance if you don’t believe me) and their private foundations, is not a reliable source of information. The ‘left-wing’ corporate media and ‘right-wing’ corporate media (MSNBC vs FOX, for example) tend to march in lock-step on these issues – they want a Clinton-vs-Cruz matchup, a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose scenario for Wall Street.
NPR and the Guardian, by the way, have really adopted the corporate mindset (the Guardian has blocked my comments so many times since their management turnover that I’ve given up on posting there, for example) – and NPR radio stations in the U.S., so-called ‘public radio’ is mostly financed by large corporate interests like the natural gas lobby, as well as shady private foundations that act like media superPACs.
Notice that Bernie Sanders has pointed to the corporate media as one of the fundamentally corrupt institutions in the United States, and since they don’t like that, they go into backlash mode. Interestingly, Trump has done the same, although he goes after the ‘right-wing’ corporate media while Sanders goes after the ‘left-wing’ corporate media. . .
Incidentally, when the left-wing and the right-wing agree, you can see where the Wall Street propaganda is pointing – for example, they agree that the U.S. needs to increase its military presence in Europe by a factor of three, a real cash cow position for the military-industrial complex, and the same investors who control the corporate media would not like to see 50% of the U.S. military overseas budget directed to domestic infrastructure replacement, would they?
Brain-salad “balance”.
You may chose from Ethan Allen’s Dressing Collection (fresh-ground punctuation included)
Oh really? Hillary never changed her position on something because of money from a special interest. See exhibit A at 12:00-16:00 of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ
I imagine there are plenty more examples to find, though this one is pretty damning. So much for claiming you have never changed position on something due to money from a special interest. What an outright blatant lie. I know this is politics, but you would think Hillary would try to deflect here or something when her record shows just the opposite of her claims. Though somehow I doubt the media will due its due diligence to fact check Clinton’s claim and show the American people she lied about her record as regards this in the debate. Or maybe true changes of heart just happen to go which way the money goes for her and the two are not connected in any way as she would try to have us believe. That is the question every voter needs to answer.
Came here to say this. I think Clinton just expects people will listen to her and research anything she says. Which, unfortunately, may be true for older generations but young people look up everything. Might be why Bernie does so well with young people.
“That is what corruption is about. And that is what has to change in the United States of America.”
Yes, I agree, but as an older & evolved cynical person, I don’t believe it will change for the better. Why, because it’s bigger than just Wall Street & our Government . “We The People”, the Electorate, have bought in via the bribes our Government/Politicians have paid us. We demand all our entitlements, Farm Subsides, etc. as though we actually paid full-value for them. Our Federal Gov. pays double the salary & benefits that an equivalent private sector job pays. It’s not “Pork” when my Congressman provides unwarranted $$$ for waste/excess in my District.
“people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. And in my view, it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country.”
Once again, I agree, except when “We The People” accept their bribes, we too are corrupted . We’re all culpable. Imo, until “We The People” admit it, nothing’s going to change for the better.
Thanks for allowing me to state my opinion.
Me? What bribe have I taken?
1. Paying into SS and getting the benefits when you retire.
2. Paying a politician to get elected, enabling deregulation; taking advantage of resulting instability (which after a few decades crashes the financial system) to get very rich.
No, 1. does not enable 2. That is not how it works.
scale matters
THANK YOU…for blaming the victim.
Here is a specific example of Clinton being controlled by Wall Street. This needs to be seen widely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
“That is what corruption is about. And that is what has to change in the United States of America.”
Yes, I agree, but as an older & evolved cynical person, I don’t believe it will change for the better. Why, because it’s bigger than just Wall Street & our Government. “We The People”, the Electorate, have bought in via the bribes our Government/Politicians have paid us. We demand all our entitlements, Farm Subsides, etc. as though we actually paid full-value for them. Our Federal Gov. pays double the salary & benefits that an equivalent private sector job pays. It’s not “Pork” when my Congressman provides unwarranted $$$ for waste/excess in my District.
“people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. And in my view, it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country.”
Once again, I agree, except when “We The People” accept their bribes, we too are corrupted . We’re all culpable. Imo, until “We The People” admit it, nothing’s going to change for the better.
Thanks for allowing me to state my opinion.
Progressives understand that making drugs illegal does not stop addiction, but merely makes it harder to find and treat the victims. But for some reason, they seem to believe that making corruption illegal will solve the problems in politics.
There is no advantage if $675,000 is deposited into a secret offshore bank account. When paid up front, it can be taxed and some of the money goes into government coffers. The transaction is transparent, so voters can choose if they want to elect someone who gives speeches for Goldman Sachs, for Exxon-Mobil, or for the local PTA. If done in secret, voters don’t know who their representatives are working for, the money goes into the underground economy and the level of corruption overall will increase, because if hidden, there will be no negative PR caused by accepting ever larger amounts of money.
In the US, corruption is legalized and should stay that way.
The question is whether, Duce, the corruption is taxed at year’s end, as income for the bribee, or at the point of sale. We could call it a Value Subtracted Tax.
They’re both right. It is an artful smear. And she is corrupt.
Hillary Clinton has indicated that at least some of the money she
and he husband receive from corporations is for the
“Clinton Foundation.”
The Clinton Foundation seems to be involved in a number
of areas which could benefit from serious actions to improve
people’s lives, but it also seems that when the Clintons become
involved the actions require very large amounts of money
and have the ability to result in minimal improvements.
Look at the current state of Haiti.
With the support of the UN,
the main “improvement” seems to be a reduction of democracy
and a reinforcing of neo-liberal/conservative economic
schemes for the benefit of foreign investors.
Is the Clinton Foundation mainly a branch of the
neo-fascist IMF and the World Bank?
Go Bernie!
America needs you!
GoBernie!
America needs you!
Free democracy support for Sanders on The Intercept!
Free campaign support for Sanders on The Intercept!
You might want to think about that for a bit…Pretty sure ALL
You may want to think about that for a second… Mainstream media (about 95 percent of the media) is corporate backed (Bernie wants to stop that by reregulating the fcc – yes, he doesn’t speak very much about it, but trust me, he will) and they affectionately cover Hillary while smearing Bernie. Independent media covers…the truth. Bernie is trying to get money out of politics, Hillary accepts money from Wall Street. Bernie has never said “Hillary, you are corrupt!” he is leaving that up to the American people to decide. Anyone who believes that Hillary, or anyone else who accepts large corporate campaign donations and doesn’t let that influence their decisions watches the 95 percent of mainstream media and ignores independent media. That is is – plain and simple.
Hillary Clinton accused the Sanders campaign and Sanders supporters of engaging in an “artful smear”:
“Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to, you know, ‘Anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought.’ ” – Hillary Clinton
This seems like a paraphrasing of Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s quote, in support of the Citizen’s United decision:
“It seems to me fanciful to think that the sense of gratitude that an individual senator or congressman is going to feel because of a substantial contribution to the Republican National Committee or Democratic National Committee is any greater than the sense of gratitude that that senator or congressman will feel to a PAC which is spending enormous amount of money in his district or in his state for his election.” – Antonin Scalia
Or, perhaps, a paraphrasing of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizen’s United:
” The McConnell record was “over 100,000 pages” long, McConnell I , 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 209, yet it “does not have any direct examples of votes being exchanged for . . . expenditures,” id. , at 560 (opinion of Kollar-Kotelly, J.). This confirms Buckley ’s reasoning that independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption. In fact, there is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate.”
Just so I have this straight. Hillary says she opposes the Citizens United decision and wants money out of politics, a constitutional amendment to that effect, etc. But when it comes to her own receipt of millions of corporate dollars, that is not a problem. She is immune to the influence of big money. That’s just a problem for everyone else.
The Constitutional amendment needs to has an exemption clause for Hillary in recognition of her unique uncorruptibility.
Haha, nice!
In politics it is all about appearances (and money). If you want to appear to not be corrupt, you do not take large sums of money from anyone. Period. This behavior of course does not guarantee incorruptibility, for there is always the possibility of deferred compensation, a la Eric Holder, Tim Geithner, etc., ad nauseum.
Now some might say it is unfair to tie Hillary to the acts of her husband, such as the repeal of Glass-Stegall, but the plain fact is that she would not be where she is without him; her prominence is entirely due to her proximity to him, just as GW’s prominence was due to his proximity to GHW, and Jeb’s. . . well, you get the idea. No sexism here. So it may be that Hillary’s millions in fees, all adding to her personal fortune, by the way, are expressions of gratitude for the acts of her husband. And then again, they may be expressions of both gratitude and the hope that such favors will continue.
From the outside we cannot tell whether Hillary is corrupt in her heart, but the appearance of it is obvious.
Then why (the fuck), Dan, did Sanders call Obama’s performance “excellent” last night? Was it not Obama’s DoJ who failed to charge any of the Wall Street big-wig financiers?
That Makes No Sense … to me.
*bonus point: Sanders also described Obama as ‘progressive’ … yet, “The root of that word, progressive, is progress, but I’ve heard Senator Sanders’s comments and it’s really caused me to wonder who’s left in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Under his definition, President Obama is not progressive because he took donations from Wall Street.” *NYT
Bernie is speaking relatively and trying to be polite. Relative to what Republicans want to do and current establishment politics, Obama is quite progressive. Relative to Bernie, he’s not very progressive.
I do wish that he had been a bit more forceful here. Yes, there aren’t many people left in the progressive wing of the Democratic party. We’ve had Third Way democrats running to the center for a while while the GOP ran further and further right, so today’s Democrats would consider Reagan to be economically on the fringe left. The American people haven’t really shifted that much, but the political establishment has.
Don’t get me wrong, Seth. I would still have a beer … and smoke the peace pipe with Bernie! *not even possible, of course, relative to Republicans advanced Mad Cow dis-ease.
Still, Sanders continued holding-out Obama as some kind of Standard-bearer for rational ‘progressive ism’ (or civic/social justice issues … or foreign policy, etc., etc.) seems a bit regressively unseemly, imo.
Nor, do I think Sanders ‘hitching his wagon’ to Obama will pan-out for the elections in the long run. The peoples is pissed. For the most part, Sanders should eschew the legacy of Obama, for more reasons the one (1), imo.
*and another thing: if Sanders starts wearing one of those infernal *flag pins* in his lapel … it’s all over but the cryin’ as far as I’m concerned.
Bill Clinton and his boys deregulated Wall Street. They also started us on the “free trade” road. Didn’t Chelsea work on Wall Street and marry a banker? I wonder if those emails have a lot of TPP and business stuff in them that would come back to bite her.
The average person is doomed if anyone but Sanders gets elected.
Bernie Sanders for President!!!!! Come on let’s see some change, for the better, in this country.
As much as Clinton tries to cast herself as some kind of Wall Street reformer or critic, keep in mind that since the malfeasance of 2008, Wall Street has become only more wealthy, more powerful, more inaccessible and unaccountable. Hillary has been with them all the way.
Not one individual has spent one second behind bars for actions that any firm on Wall Street committed. The financial elite are simply above the law and not held accountable. They can do what they want, and they know it.
No one out there–especially Clinton–has the stomach or desire to truly reform Wall Street the way Sanders wants to. And, reform is the only way to ensure that another 2008 doesn’t happen again.
But, reform hasn’t come. Wall Street doesn’t want it, so, it’s not going to happen, it’s that simple. Not with politicians like Hillary Clinton, as well as many, many others, around to preserve it.
Some people become corrupted because they feel gratitude. But with training, as all professional politicians know, you can learn to suppress this emotion. If someone gives you a million dollars, verbally thank them, but ask yourself, “Are they of any further use to me?” If the answer is no, eliminate them from your life. See – you are now incorruptible.
Luckily, you can still successfully appeal to greed. When offering a bribe, er speaking fee, always emphasize there’s lots more coming down the pipe. Never say, “Well we won’t be able to afford that again”, since they’ll lose all interest in you (remember, they feel no gratitude). Always say, “I apologize for the paltry speaking fee, but we are planning a much larger event next time, and hopefully if you decide to honor us with your presence, we’ll be able to compensate you properly”.
They won’t be corrupted of course (how can someone be corrupted by money which hasn’t even been paid?), but they’ll call you back frequently, asking if you’ve finalized a date for your next event. That’s really all you want – it’s just about communication.
What appears as corruption to outsiders is actually just relationship building.
WELL SAID!!!!
Not only that: with corruption, there has to be quid pro quo, as evidenced by a written document. If politician A receives a large donation from corporation B, and then gets a law passed that favors B, or gets B off from some small felony charge, it is not quid pro quo, just a coincidence, unless there is a written agreement that has been signed by both parties before a Notary Public and duly registered at the Library of Congress.
If you don’t believe me, just ask Eric Holder.
Well, benitoe, it’s not like those two things are mutually exclusive. In fact, I’m convinced there is such a thing as “corrupt relationship building”.
This is good advice from an old pro for the next generation of American professional politicians. Thank you sir, your service to America and selflessness knows no bounds.
Last night was the beginning of the end for Clinton. She’s having to differentiate herself from change. She is the corporate candidate.
Do not jump to conclusions about the levels of depravity
which are acceptable to the majority of voters.
The recent history of democrat and republican candidates
clearly shows that they believe that their careers are
vitally linked to a sadomasochistic relationship which can
be summed up by the words,
“Stop complaining, you KNOW you like it” when they
mentally and physically abuse other people.
Clinton’s blatant corruption is very likely
(based upon the actions of voters in the recent decades)
to lead to an even tighter circling of the wagons by the
delusional democrat voters.
“The republicans made her do it” is the sort of pathetic excuse
which is likely to emerge,
along with some sort of more intense attacks which will
portray Sanders as some sort of mix between Stalin,
Rebecca of Sunny Brook farm, and Donald Trump.
The problem for Sanders is that he has willingly joined
the democrat version of the problem because he sees it
as being pragmatic and that helps lend credibility to
the Clintonistas.
Hmmmm insinuating? He’s far more a gentleman than I. I am a woman and she is the highest priced hooker on Wall Street. I do like Bernie Sanders very much. Will he make it to the White House? I don’t know but I sure hope so. What I do know is this. What he has done for this country by very loudly calling out the things most American people know but have no real platform to talk about it is probably the most heroic thing I have and will ever see from a politician. We should all be thanking him. He has given so many frustrated people permission to speak and it feels GREAT. I just saw Obama wants 1 billion to clean up the gigantic mess that Perdue Pharm made with their supposedly non addictive synthetic heroin that they made 35 billion on. Send THEM the bill. Pharm companies are completely out of control. This little slime smirking while denying dying people a life saving drug? Wanting to crack down and enforce more gun control when 90% of school shooters are on psych meds. It’s time for a war on drugs all right…..and the scumbags that are profiting while taxpayers are given the bill, social issues, and loss of rights. Is Clinton corrupt? To the GILLS.
Maybe the payments to Hillary are for things she has already done…..
One quote by Hillary Clinton in this article
NEEDS to be examine very closely,
“Today, you’ve got hedge fund billionaires aligned with Karl Rove,
running ads against me to try to get democrats to vote
for you.”
How can she claim that Sanders “has hedge fund billionaires”
running ads against her?
What proof is there of this claim?
Oops, the word “has” should not have been in quotation marks.
My apologies.
I don’t think “you” was directed at Bernie….
Why is this article parroting Sanders talking points instead of answering whether or not those donations and speaking fees actually influenced her decision making?
She told him to his face: if you have something to say, say it. He didn’t say anything beyond money is in politics and the system is corrupt. He failed to single out one time her influence was bought as he’s been suggesting on the stump.
Is that a real question? Of course her influence has been bought by the interest groups who are funding her campaign. It is incredibly naïve to believe that these groups are giving her all this money for nothing.
Yes!
Unless you can prove a direct quid pro quo, you should never imply that accepting millions of dollars could be influencing Clinton. Heavens!!
On the evidence, I’d say she clearly shares the value system of Wall Street anyway — there is no need at all for Clinton to be bought.
Pretty difficult to prove. Generally, people get those kinds of fees and campaign donations because they are being paid for already being in bed with that group. Why else do corporations pay three figure sums for a speech about a politician’s views on a subject when they should be able to just google it? But let’s take Hillary’s position on TPP and other trade deals. Most progressives are staunchly against these, as they take jobs overseas, to third world sweatshops. And they give corporations the right to sue the US for any regulation it may pass that they think costs them profits. Things like environmental or product safety regulations. Corporations write most of the text of these deals, for their own benefit. Hillary is a firm supporter, Bernie is against. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
He pointed out a few, called her the deregulator of huge banks, and it doesn’t matter, all he has to say is you have a super lac I don’t, because everyone knows Hillary is a Neo-liberal corporatist warhawk. We live in an informed population, he doesn’t have to be as specific. People already know.
Well then she should have no problem releasing the transcripts from her goldman speeches right.
GG mentioned one in his Twitter feed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
Start at minute 12:00 and listen to Elizabeth Warren clearly show how Hillary was bought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ
I think Sanders didn’t bring up an example, of which one isn’t hard to find, is because it would have distracted from the main points he was trying to hammer home. You only have so long to speak, so there isn’t much time to frame an issue and where Clinton stood and then where she changed when special interests gave her money. Debates don’t allot the time to get specific and frame a situation like this clearly. But just because Sanders chose not to give an example, well that doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
Why give millions for nothing in return over, and over, and over again? They are not stupid or in the charity business. Of course they get what they pay for!
More importantly, it’s not just Hillary, it’s almost every politician in D.C.
Goldman Sachs has bought Rahm Emanuel too. Would anyone dream of making him president?
There is a Criminal Element flourishing on Wall ST. that is permitted to act with impunity due to the complete corruption of our Legal and Politicial systems. The fact that Billary fails to unequivocally condemn this state of affairs is a tacit acknowledgement of her complicity. The current Criminal Law “corporate shield” system,almost permits corporate criminals to … (the REAL live CRIMINALS) to routinely avoid there “perp walks”… the Corporation pleads nolo, admits nothing and pays a fine… This “Corporate Shield” system protects the Human Perps and promotes and propagates Corporate crime. The so called economic downturn was the result of the most massive Fraud in human history… ICELAND JAILED THERE BANKSTERS. Our Criminal Justice systems needs to be modified so that the human perpetrators are charged and their “Corporate Shield” is removed after a preliminary hearing… At present the Coddling of Corporate Crime is Conceptually rooted in Our Criminal Justice System…
Hillary’s primary constituents are Wall Street, Big Pharma and the military industrial complex. Unacceptable.
Clinton is pro-corporate establishment no matter what BS comes out of her mouth. Like all politicians — and everyone, really — watch what she does, not what she says. Like the mainstream Democrats, Clinton is on the left end of corporate America, but corporate America she is.
Karl Rove is not even close to a billionaire. Please correct your article to reflect that.
Sanders isn’t an exception to the rule, but rather also an example of the rule:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html?_r=0
Ah, yes, reliable reporting from the Judith Miller and Bill Keller New York Times.
It depends on which definitions of spending you use. This argument has come up before.
That article was kindly broken down on this very site…
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/
Hillary chooses to do the bidding of the Big Money interest groups because she believes they are a force for progressive change that’s good for America.
It’s just a complete coincidence they give her millions of dollars.
A
Exactly!
It really is a shame that no one brought up the bankruptcy bill that Elizabeth Warren had convinced First Lady Hillary was too good for credit card companies and had to be stopped, before Senator Hillary voted in favor of it after Wall Street donated to her campaign. Hillary Clinton told a bold face lie on stage tonight.