Hillary Clinton is campaigning as a guardian of President Barack Obama’s progressive policy accomplishments. In recent weeks, she has called the Affordable Care Act “one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic Party, and of our country,” and promised that she is “going to defend Dodd-Frank” and “defend President Obama for taking on Wall Street.”
Meanwhile, however, Clinton’s campaign has been relying on a team of strategists and fundraisers, many of whom spent much of the last seven years as consultants or lobbyists for business interests working to obstruct Obama’s agenda in those two areas.
Consultants associated with the Dewey Square Group, a lobbying firm that has been retained by business interests to defeat a variety of progressive reforms, are playing a major role in the Clinton campaign. Charles Baker III, the co-founder of Dewey, is a senior strategist and the campaign’s chief administrative officer. Michael Whouley, another Dewey co-founder, played an early role in advising Clinton’s plan for the current campaign by convening some of the very first strategy sessions. Senior Dewey officials Jill Alper and Minyon Moore are also close advisers and fundraisers for Clinton, while at least four other Clinton officials have worked at Dewey within the last four years. In addition, disclosures show that Clinton’s Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record have also paid Dewey Square Group for a variety of services in this election.
Undermining Obamacare reforms
Dewey, for instance, worked on behalf of the health insurance industry during the health reform debate, specifically to block the changes to Medicare Advantage that were critical for financing the Affordable Care Act. Medicare Advantage, which allows Medicare beneficiaries to use plans administered by private insurers, had long served as a cash cow for the health insurance industry. By one estimate, insurance companies over-billed the government by nearly $70 billion in improper payments over just a five year period. Dewey, which had been tapped to by health insurers to block cuts from the program starting in 2007, continued during the Obama era to lobby to protect Medicare Advantage, even as such reforms became a major part of how Democrats and the Obama administration sought to finance the Affordable Care Act.
One of the more deceptive components of the Dewey lobbying strategy was uncovered when an editor at the Lawrence, Massachusetts, Eagle-Tribune realized that the firm had worked quietly to place letters to the editor against cuts to Medicare Advantage under the names of elderly Massachusetts residents without their knowledge or consent.
Last year, ProPublica’s Alec MacGillis pressed America’s Health Insurance Plans, a major private health insurance lobby group that had retained Dewey, over the controversy. AHIP’s spokesperson brushed off the fake letter incident as the work of an intern and told MacGillis that AHIP ended its relationship with Dewey back in 2008, before the letters were sent. But tax documents reviewed by The Intercept show that a state-level health insurance lobby group called the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, which represents the same major health insurance firms as AHIP, continued to pay Dewey throughout 2009 to 2012 for “grassroots” consulting.
“I don’t have any comment for your piece,” wrote Ginny Terzano, a spokesperson for Dewey, in response to an inquiry from The Intercept.
In 2009, Dewey was also retained by the National Restaurant Association, which at the time was lobbying aggressively to block health reform rules to require employers to provide health coverage to their employees. The National Restaurant Association, derided by labor activists as “the other NRA” for its role in lobbying against efforts to raise the minimum wage, paid Dewey $772,110 that year. Charles Baker, the Dewey co-founder who now serves as a senior strategist to the Clinton campaign, was also registered to influence health reform on behalf of the Medicines Company, a drug firm.
Other lobbyists now closely associated with the Clinton campaign were active in the fight against Obama’s health reforms.
Heather Podesta is one of the most prolific fundraisers for the Clinton campaign, having personally raised at least $348,581, according to recently filed disclosures. In 2009 and 2010, Podesta worked as lobbyist for the health insurance company Cigna. While working for Cigna to influence the health reform bill, Cigna was one of several large health insurers to secretly provide over $86 million in secret payments used to air negative television and radio advertisements to defeat the law. Heather Podesta is one of several lobbyists now fundraising for the campaign who previously worked for insurance interests to influence health reform. Irene Bueno, a fundraiser who raised $26,675, lobbied on behalf of CareMore (a division of health insurer Anthem) and Blue Shield of California to influence health reform as the bill was being debated. Bueno and Podesta did not respond to a request for comment.
Helping big banks undermine financial reform
On financial reform, Clinton has similarly tied herself to Obama’s legacy. Speaking with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow last month, Clinton asserted that on Dodd-Frank, Obama’s financial reform legislation, she is one of the “many Democrats” who are “fighting to prevent it from being turned back.”
Clinton’s inner circle, however, has lobbied to help obstruct and roll back many of Dodd-Frank’s signature reforms.
The Benenson Strategy Group, the consulting firm run by Joel Benenson, now serving as the Clinton campaign’s chief pollster and strategist, was retained by the Financial Services Forum, a lobbying group for Wall Street interests such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. Lobbying records show the Financial Services Forum has worked over the years to weaken a variety of Dodd-Frank reforms. In 2013, the Financial Services Forum paid Benenson’s firm $273,459 while it was lobbying on a number of rules that were mandated by Dodd-Frank, including capital requirements designed to prevent another financial crisis. Danny Franklin, a partner with the Benenson Stategy Group, wrote to The Intercept to say the Financial Services Forum is not currently a client of his firm, but declined to comment any further.
Last month, Benenson convened a conference call with reporters to “deride Bernie Sanders for airing an ad that criticized Wall Street firms and the politicians who accept their donations,” according to a report from International Business Times. As IBTimes reported, Benenson has also represented JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, among other corporate clients.
Steve Elmendorf, a campaign adviser and fundraiser who has collected $30,505 for Clinton, was retained by Goldman Sachs as one of the bank’s “primary lobbyists” working to weaken the Dodd-Frank bill. Records show that after the bill was signed into law, Elmendorf continued to work on behalf of a number of Wall Street clients to ensure the implementation was favorable to financial industry interests. Elmendorf was tapped by Citigroup, for example, to help the House of Representatives pass the Swap Jurisdiction Clarity Act, a bill strongly supported by Republican leadership in Congress to allow banks to avoid financial regulations by moving some operations overseas — a change that experts say could lead to another financial meltdown.
Elmendorf is one of many lobbyists who worked to influence Dodd-Frank now helping the Clinton campaign raise cash. Dewey co-founder Charles Baker worked on a lobbying team with DLA Piper’s Matthew Bernstein, another major Clinton fundraiser, for Citizen Financial Group to help the bank lobby on Dodd-Frank. Disclosures show the efforts included work on the Volcker Rule, derivatives regulations, and rules concerning overdraft fees, many of the top concerns for the banking industry. Arshi Siddiqui, a lobbyist with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld who is currently helping to raise money for the Clinton campaign, worked to influence Dodd-Frank implementation on behalf of the Mortgage Bankers Association, according to disclosures. Tony Podesta, the brother of the Clinton campaign’s chairman and a fundraiser for the campaign, worked for Bank of America to influence Dodd-Frank, according to filings.
Most of the Clinton campaign fundraisers who lobbied on Dodd-Frank did not respond to a request for comment. When asked about the work, Tony Podesta emailed us to say, “Call B of A.” An inquiry to Bank of America was not returned.
There are other lobbyists on the Clinton campaign staff. T. LaDavia Drane, the Clinton campaign’s director of African-American outreach, previously worked as a lobbyist for a trade group that represents Pepsico and Hershey on issues related to obesity and advertising to children. Jeff Berman, a senior Clinton campaign official who is leading her delegate strategy, previously worked as a lobbyist for the private prison firm Geo Group, seeking to influence the federal budget, as well as working for TransCanada to help secure approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.
Speaking to The Hill last year, Tony Podesta said that unlike President Obama, who instituted a ban on registered lobbyists in his administration, K Street will find a more welcome home in a Clinton White House.
“I think Hillary Clinton will be the next nominee and probably be the next president, but whomever the next president is will not maintain the lobbying ban,” he predicted. “It was a good applause line for Obama, but it didn’t seem to make much sense for policy.”
Correction: February 9, 2016
Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story stated that the Financial Services Forum paid Benenson Strategy Group to lobby. The firm says it was paid to consult, not lobby.
Top illustration (L to R): Charles Baker III: deweysquare.com; Hillary Clinton: Isaac Brekken/Getty Images; Joel Benenson: youtube.com
Lee Fang has shown us that he is a tremendously good journalist. Here he pulls back the curtain to show that the Hillary campaign is deceptive and perhaps duplicitous in hiding their true motivations in working for and/or financing Hillary’s effort to get back into the White House. Just like Bush, Bill, or Obama and that GOP Clown Car, she is a carcinogen that must be blocked and kept out of the circles of great power.
To secure a moment in the Podesta-Clinton nexus is to catch a glimpse of a surprisingly incestuous, corrupt hidden world. The spider’s web of relationships is driven by vile greed. They collect art and servants like they collect cash and levers of power.
Release the transcripts already
When I was a young boy my mother would chide me that I would be judged by the company I kept. In this case I can’t imagine why anyone but bankers, neocons and over the top feminists would lend their names to Clinton.
This would be a bad thing if lobbyists acted on conviction, but that is exactly the opposite of the nature of lobbying.
They are going to lobby for whoever pays them tell them to lobby.
“They are going to lobby for whoever pays them tell them to lobby.”
And Nazis rounded up Jews because it was their job.
Their job is the problem. We need to target lobbyists and make them unemployed. Even better if we target making them unemployable and, better still, if we get them behind bars doing hard labor. We should make that a job no one will take and we should personally destroy the people who choose to do that job.
Enlightening!!!!!
And here’s Hillary not helping women. And yes, there is a special place in hell for Hillary Clinton, Gloria Stenem and Madeleine Albright. 3 establishment women fighting on behalf of the establishment they represent. https://www.jacobinmag.com/…/hillary-clinton-womens…/
Good fcking lawd. But the argument by the Clinton side is that money does not influence her opinions nor decisions. Last time I heard of anybody like that, there was a star in the East.
Is there no end to her corruption and hypocrisy? Might this help get her republican votes?
I think that a person’s character is revealed by the company they keep. Your article reveals the duplicitous person that HRC is. There are multiple layers of questionable associations, yet many of these are in high positions on her staff. Watching her bold faced lies and smarmy accusations directed at Sanders is disturbing.
Thanks for an informative article!
Super reporting, this is not good politics, you are supposed to punish your enemies not hire them. This is an issue of integrity. Clinton claims that she is a supporter of Obamacare. Clinton claims she supported Obamacare at the time. Why do you hire people who went against you on that.
Thanks for behind the scenes factual account. You really don’t even have to ask what these various did or didn’t do, the very fact that all these high roller firms exist just for the purpose of raising money to shape policy and elections is distressing.
This is superb reporting. Thank you.
You are doing some great work Lee.
And they got ALL they pretended NOT To want: the pitiful little pool of PPCACA that 0BAMACARELE?? Actually is.
And Bernie Sanders’ chief campaign strategist worked for two oligarchs in two countries who massacred protesters in the streets. Anyone can play connect-the-dots.
You will name names -who on Sanders staff represented foreign oligarch
Tad Devine – Senior Advisor to Bernie Sanders – Wikipedia
Internationally, Devine has worked as a strategist and media consultant for the winning campaigns of Colombian President Andres Pastrana in 1998, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 1999, Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo in 2001, Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in 2002, Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern in 1997, 2002 and 2007, Honduran President Mel Zelaya in 2005, and Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich and the Party of Regions in 2006. He worked again with Yanukovich in 2009 and 2010 for his successful Presidential bid. He served as a strategist and media consultant for Ashraf Ghani’s 2009 presidential campaign in Afghanistan.[citation needed]
In the case of Mrs Clinton the dots are so many that they are making a circle around her.
Do not be intimidated. You may tell us what you have to say. Who are the two oligarchs and which are the two countries.
@OH
Careful, only “sexist, profane Bernie Bros” cite facts and demand clarification of claims from HRC supporters like that.
Tad Devine worked for Viktor Yanukovich and Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, both deposed oligarchs who had protesters gunned down. Can people figure out what countries are involved or is additional hand-holding required?
I think that promising to protect Mr. Obama’s legacy of broken promises is a tactical error by Mrs. Clinton. People are looking for a leader with vision, someone who will make grand new promises to be broken. The polls have been showing that Mrs. Clinton is mostly popular among older people still clutching to their old threadbare broken promises.
If you sell Snake Oil one year, the next year you should sell Miracle Tonic. Trying to sell Snake Oil twice in a row is pushing your luck. People’s memories are short, but not that short.
But wait, hillary tells me she’s a progressive. She smiles, uses pretty words, and makes promises about how she’ll fight for progressive ideals. She can’t be surrounding herself with people whose job it is to maximize the corporate bottom line. That would make her message bit disingenuous to say the least. This must be a mistake. She cant be a manipulative, influence-peddling liar. This article must be a mistake.
You do know these are Saint Elizabeth Warrens advisers too.
Anything to back that up? Would be a bit strange. Unlike Clinton Warren has attacked the financial industry without letting up. Also she hasn’t been running for anything the last couple of years. Or just the usual bullshit?
When you lie down with dogs, you can’t be surprised if you rise up with fleas!
Or fees if they are republican dogs.
She will sell us all out to the GOP for a pittance. She’s no champion of the people. She’s a greedy money-grabber.
Thank you Lee Fang. This article gives weight to the argument that Hillary is not for the people as much as she is for big industry.
Bill Clinton went ballistic yesterday in NH. I don’t think it’s only Bernie Sanders who is getting to him. It’s all this prying into their business and political affairs which they don’t like. I don’t think that the Clinton’s have ever been questioned by the msm the way Hillary was by Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, and Chuck Todd last week. Their Wall St pandering is being exposed as never before and it deeply offends their feeling of entitlement.
http://goo.gl/R9YbtC
Is this…news?
I never noticed HRC’s penchant for posing in front of devilish red banners until I started reading the Intercept. Oh wait.
Dude, you can’t even win a simple logical argument, so why are you back bashing TI?
Did you figure out the latch on the safety gate again?
Dude, you can’t even troll-scare off a simpleton, so why are you back trolling someone so far beneath you? Did you figure out this is the best you can do with your life? Think about that for a moment, then take a break when it starts to hurt. I’m stupid, and yet you’re my loving troll. Great accomplishment, there, dude.
Being wrong (Did you write the Intercept to ask about that or are you still pounding your foot and shouting “logic!!!!!,” which you clearly have not even been introduced to?) doesn’t make you logical, btw, quite the contrary. But dealing with the mentally challenged requires patient repetition, and as my admin is fond of saying, “[Macroman] is not a patient man […er, dude]” But yeah, keep trying to subdue me with your breathtaking wit befitting the teenage jackass you undoubtedly are. It’ll surely work next time.
You received a response from an authority on the subject but it sailed “over and over and over” your head. Snowden directed the release of the NSA files. You must be smarter than your posts indicate because, well, that a simple definition would trip-up such a grammatical wizard is odd; addled even. (It was your “foot-pounding” and “being a dick; dick” that gave you away.)
Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the authors are not the ones to be executed as you argued but it really is all Snowden’s fault …
Go fuck yourself silly with that sherry bottle.
Surely you’re not referring to yourself.
Couldn’t have been me. I would have used a comma between the two dicks.
[emphasis omitted]
In all seriousness, I never argued that. I asked a rhetorical question that you’ve been moaning about for weeks that was (clearly, for fuck’s sake) arguing that it was not Snowden’s fault that that article was published. I was pointing out that the person I was addressing (who, again, wasn’t you) wouldn’t actually call for the authors’ executions, though that would be the more relevant baying-for-blood psychopathy to exhibit, since that would accord with facts and…logic (your favorite!). Nobody involved with that article should be executed, I think, as anybody with a modicum of reading comprehension could have easily apprehended. Go back and read it — for the first time.
How’d you know I’m rich?!? One more thing I have that you don’t. I’d feel sorry for you if you weren’t such a dick, dick.
“since that would accord with facts …”
Snowden directed this be done.
Simple. You may repeat this “over and over” (twice is more than enough).
Yes, I took issue with your rhetorical comment.
I then assumed you’re a cheap drunk and mentioned a fortified product obtainable at a bargain price (I have seen advertisements for sherry at $6-7). Apparently you have been missing out; read those labels!
A higher alcohol content for the same price means you get more drunk for the same price (yeah). It could save you money but only if you dial back consumption. There is an entire pseudo-science called economics that attempts to pull the matter, of drunkenness per dollar spent, together. Career path …?
My original comment referring the Isreali drone story: “Snowden didn’t publish this.”
Your response: “Perhaps you missed something…[quoteing article] ‘GCHQ files provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden…”
My reply: “I…know the difference between “published” and “provided.””
Your response: “If it is on this site you can be sure Mr. Snowden vetted its release.”
My reply: “Mr. Snowden doesn’t vet anything on this site.”
Your response: “The material to be published would be vetted, to protect vital national interests, as directed by Snowden.”
My reply: “TI does take input from the gov. before publishing, true.”
Now look at your blockquote above. Nothing about that contradicts any facts I’ve asserted whatsoever. It is just an example of you having moved the goalpost after you insisted Snowden vetted everything that’s published. Note that directing something to be vetted by others and vetting are different things. Not that I doubt your unassailable logic, reading comprehension, intelligence, or etiquette or anything. But you’re clearly wrong on this and should consider ceasing the head banging. You are going to run out of brain cells before you have a chance to lose your virginity, you poor boy.
By “devilish red banners” do you mean the Clinton campaign’s own symbology?
I just noticed that the last three HRC-bashing articles have her superimposed on a red background, smiling ominously, but it looks like the previous two were pictures of the debate backgrounds and she is only capable of smiling ominously. So maybe not the intercept’s fault (but it is probably purposeful, I think). Warren gets a blue background and a serious look.
Hey Lee,
Outstanding article! Bernie must know all of this so it begs the question: Why is Bernie so reluctant to give voice to these facts during open debate?
If one goes back to the days when Governor William Clinton was first being courted by the likes of Lawrence Rubin to examine the roots of the longstanding cozy relationship that the Clinton’s enjoy with Wall Street (e.g. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs), then one is struck by how central Hillary was to the type of banking deregulation which led to the crash in 2008. In this latest debate, Bernie could have easily countered Hillary’s claim that she is currently seen as a threat by the Wall Street establishment. Yet he chose to remain silent. Now, one might argue that his silence is a brilliant strategy wherein he is allowing others like yourself to ferret out the damning truth, but victories in Iowa and New Hampshire were deemed essential to Bernie’s chance of attracting uncommitted super delegate votes. It just doesn’t seem that he is playing to win…
Ah, remember – it only seems like a few months ago – when Sanders had blown it, thrown the election, by giving a pass to Hillary Clinton on her emails? What in the world was he thinking? His campaign was over!
Good times. If only Bernie Sanders listened to every armchair political operative telling him what to attack and how much to attack and when. Guy might actually have a chance.
Giving Hillary a “pass on her emails” was a no-brainer. She was already being investigated by Congress with the aide of the Judiciary. Furthermore, she was predictably prone to further scrutiny by Republicans in the run-up to the convention. That move was seen as a positive by the majority of opinion sharpers.
Armchair, or no, the math tells the story:
There are 4,763 delegates to the Democratic National Convention, so it takes 2,382 to win the nomination. Of these, the Democrats have 712 superdelegates who can support any candidate, no matter whom voters choose in the primaries and caucuses. They are members of Congress and other elected officials, party leaders and members of the Democratic National Committee – the very people that overwhelmingly support Clinton’s candidacy. So far, 362 have said they would support Hillary Clinton at the convention. Only eight have backed Sen. Bernie Sanders and two have said they would support O’Malley. Thus, a 50-50 split of convention delegates (as stipulated by a compilation of popular vote outcomes) already assures a victory for the Clinton camp by six superdelegate votes.
Same old song from you, Doug.
Shillary is circling the bowl and all Bernie has to do is watch her float away.
What time are fruit cups served?
Bernie and his campaign are made up of real people. They don’t know everything, or have time to investigate everybody. It is probably a big job getting from place to place, making speeches, shaking hands, rehearsing for debates, keeping up on the issues, following polls, staying in touch with issues that matter to voters. There is only so much time in a day. In an ideal world, yes, you would not only investigate the opposition, but everybody working for them, and have spies throughout their organization, both on the democratic side and on the republican side. We imagine that campaigns are this organized, but it is impossible to do everything that one would like to do. Humans are limited beings; we do what we can get done in a day. Its easy to see all that we could have said and done in hindsight…
I think Lee has done his job well as part of the fourth estate. We need an independent press because campaigns can’t do all the investigations. And we as voters need to be informed, so we can tell when Lucy is going to fake us out again, promising she won’t pull away the football when we go to kick it. Seriously, don’t fall for it. She is lying.
Bernie is well aware of all of this, and he will not directly push any of it. But it’s clear to all that he doesn’t believe that Ms. Clinton is really a Progress, but is a member of the oligarchy to maintain the status quo. Oh, she may be far left of Cruz and Rubio, but she is also far right of Bernie. HRC is further right than Obama, and Obama was right of Nixon. Bernie will maintain a class act.
Hi Bruce,
Time is now a critical factor in winning over the necessary delegates. It does not matter what Bernie Knows or thinks. It only matters what the electorate thinks as they caucus. The northeast should be where Bernie most shines. yet his overwhelming lead in polling has been dwindling in New Hampshire since the last debate; that debate was critical to the goal of securing the MAJORITY of N.H. delegates. Six of New Hampshire’s eight superdelegates have already expressed support for Clinton. Even if Sanders wins the remaining two superdelegates he is still tasked with winning the majority of N.H.’s 24 convention delegates just to break even. latest polling shows that he has a twelve point advantage over Clinton in the polling which reflects a 14 to 10 split in favor of Bernie. At the end of the day, Bernie is poised to break even in the delegate count.
Here we have another neocon with trappings of a “progressive” to garner votes of the unknowing. This country is rapidly slipping off the right side of oblivion, something I thought would happen way after my lifetime. It now appears we are again heading into more conflicts of questionable value whilst ripping more capital from the working class Americana. We really aren’t left with much of a “choice” this election cycle; any GOP and immediate escalations everywhere and religious privilege or a neocon Dem. that gives a few civil rights and also escalation overseas. We really are left in a state of despair at least to me IMO. :(
Don’t be too despaired….
According to this Putin and the Syrian Army, Hezbollah and Iran are about to re-take Aleppo (much to the U.S./NATO’s hand-wringing):
http://www.newsvivo.com/news/the-syria-war-will-not-be-a-quagmire-because-putin-and-assad-are-winning-huffington-post
Ol’ Hippy, I may be a bit older than you and I concur. This country was built on hegemony ever since the first immigrants landed here and through warfare and land deals managed to give us what we now call these “United States”. We have since become the world’s police force making sure that our “national interests” continue to provide cheap oil and precious minerals so that the smug phrase “American Exceptionalism” guarantees a SUV/pickup truck/ smart phone to further bolster our “American Exceptionalism” . Allow me to also add… it is a white man’s country regardless of the crap we’re told. Pissed off and embarassed to be an American, I consider myself a citizen of the world. “Nuff said”.
Then buck the so-called “two party system”. They haven’t banned third party candidates from running just yet, so go out there and vote for one while we still can. The Green Party’s Jill Stein would be an excellent candidate to vote for.
good journalism
Excellent article Mr. Fang. It shows her hypocrisy in full force. Anyone who believes she isn’t a Rethug in a pantsuit is willfully blind. Now, I’m sure you will be labeled a Bernie Bro.
It really doesn’t matter what questionable strategies Hillary endorses – the women of America are compelled to vote for her, or spend eternity in Madeline Albright’s neighborhood in hell – where everyone dresses and talks just like Maddy.
This interview with Ray McGovern at Salon.com recently is off-topic, but I thought others might be interested:
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/07/intelligent_people_know_that_the_empire_is_on_the_downhill_a_veteran_cia_agent_spills_the_goods_on_the_deep_state_and_our_foreign_policy_nightmares/
If anyone is interested in McGovern’s long career with the CIA and/or his credibility on the topics he speaks about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_McGovern
Another fine job, Lee.
Don’t forget that Michael “the wizard/brain” Whouley was also brought in to help the Clinton campaign in Iowa when polls weren’t looking too great: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-01-29/on-the-road-again-michael-whouley-joins-bill-clinton-in-iowa
Thanks for the link Zinitaki, missed that one.
It all starts with a high school debate team. The student learns the importance of being able to see both sides of an issue by being given a side at random to argue in favor of. In time, with training, he learns to think of arguing professionally, as a career; for instance, to argue the side of the government against a poor nobody on loan from a jail cell, or to argue for the professional criminal or celebrity who finds himself unfairly caught up in that system. The essence of professionalism is to argue in exchange of money, and the essence of adversarial argument is to willingly turn a blind eye to any inconvenient truth. Only an amateur argues for things merely because he believes in them.
Beautiful comment.
Sure…..sounds right
Very thoughtful.
I’d point out that you deliberately left out the job of the lawyer who has to defend the “universally-condemned-everyone-already-knows-he’s-guilty-anyway defendant.” And yet that is also something taught within this flawed system.
You don’t need to load the dice on your interesting contentions this way — there is plenty that is problematic in the adversarial argument system worth concern. One problem is coming up with an alternative, since where there is no conflict, there is also no argument in the first place.
I’ll take an amateur because I don’t want the job to exist.
just some horse race stuff (except I’m funnier than the paid pundits…if you ask me…you won’t):
Did some consultant dress Bill Clinton in a Lamar Alexander 1996 plaid shirt as an ironic statement, given that Lamar was one of the more failed and ridiculed Republican candidates running against him that year?
Is it the Jungian collective unconscious at work? Cosmic laughter?
Could you have a more ineptly double-talking campaign than having Hillary Clinton suggest people get too offended about things on the exact same day Bill Clinton says, be offended, be very offended? Do these two even have phone conversations?
Is the Hillary Clinton campaign of 2016 more poorly engineered than even the Mitt Romney campaign of 2012?
Hillary Clinton is looking more and more like a Republican every day. Just wondering when she is going to become a global warming denier.
It’s much more convenient for her NOT to deny global warming and say it’s unrealistic to do anything or hold anyone accountable.
That might even be a true assertion… someday …, but someone would have to argue long, hard, and convincingly for me to believe Hillary would be anywhere involved in making it happen.
How much longer does Hillary Clinton think I can listen to what she says vs watching what she does, and not develop some very unfavorable opinions of her and her candidacy?
Congrats Lee. You managed to prove that a professional lobbying firm was paid to undermine Obamacare. Which is what professional lobby firms do. GET PAID. Somehow in your mind the fact that Clinton’s campaign hired professionals to work for her campaign somehow means that somehow she was involved in their previous assignments? Like if you hire a lawyer to defend you in a traffic ticket case…but they were once in court defending a murderer…you MUST be guilty of murder. Awesome job of illustrating how “journalism” has deteriorated over time.
That’s from a person who typed the word “somehow” three times into a single sentence.
Should we be surprised?????
by your cliched, adds nothing comment?????
lee fang ….could you research hillarys claim about the reason she was against the bankruptcy bill which she says was protection of women and children can you clarify the fuster cluck
And I sincerely hope Sanders has the good sense to let her claim it… such as it is.
Great reporting. Next step, ask Hillary about it, record her laughter.
Then circulate video of her laughing off the issue on social media, the mainstream media will then ask her about it.
(the Lee Fang news cycle)
Interesting but it doesn’t say what the title implies.
These people and companies are for hire. They don’t have an ideology. They perform a service they want to be paid for and after they’re paid that’s the end of their obligation to that company, person or campaign.
So when looking to hire strategists and fundraisers, campaign managers or whoever does this its likely they would look at success of potential employees were hired to do in the past, not whether their candidate agrees with the substance of what they did or who they were working for.
Go Lee Go!!!
This is a perfect example of how no one can know what politicians are telling the truth about. Insinuating (or plainly apparent) support for some cause meanwhile there’s something else diametrically opposed to it that is propping that politician up.
I believe some people are actually beginning to just accept the idea that politicians have to say anything to get elected – but if that is the case, and becomes generally acceptable, how does anyone know what they’re getting? It’s like an unmasking at the end of scooby doo: Surprise! Bernie Sanders is actually a member of the corporate elite!
Suprise! No he is not!
His long standing 33 year record proves he actually represents his constituents.
There’s nothing you can do to smear Sanders. Deal with it!
By the way, referencing a cartoon tells a lot about you.
It wasnt meant to be; id like to see him win. Its just that obama isnt at all who he said was in practice… As most politicians. So who will bernie turn out to be in practice. He appears to be principled., winning the election and only time will tell.
Obama was funded by the same big money folks as Clinton. Anyone who could see past his persuasive charm (most people couldn’t) knew that he was not going to be the conduit of change he claimed to be. Fast forward to when he started appointing his cabinet and this became much more clear. Anyone with the likes of Rahm Emmanuel and Tim Geithner around them is supporting the status quo.
People were so desperate for hope they injected a lot of their dreams into Obama, but based on his actions from the very beginning it was clear he was politics as usual, in a black man’s body. (FTR I’m a black woman.)
When one simply looks at who funded Barack Obama’s (and the last few US presidents and the majority of those running in 2016) campaign in large part, it is quite simple to figure out what went awry with his campaign claims and his actions once in office: Wall Street banks were the major contributors to his campaign. So rather than breaking up the banks, imposing significant fines, and jailing the culprits that caused the crash, the banks were left intact, insignificant fines were handed out, and the culprits were rewarded with millions in bonuses instead of lengthy jail sentences.
Whereas Bernie Sanders campaign is funded directly and indirectly by the people, it is my hope that he will do for working-class Americans what Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama did for Wall Street. If the origins of campaign money is any indication of who a politician aims to represent in office, Bernie Sanders is the only chance we have at a president who will represent The People, rather than Wall Street, multinational corporations, and special interests.
I’d be glad find out you guys were right about Bernie. I dislike all the candidates but since America seems to be a play thing for some.. then just for fun I’d like to see Donald Trump win too..
I suspect though, if Bernie wins,.. he’ll have to make deals; he’ll have to compromise. And I would not be surprised if he continues domestic surveillance, foreign entanglements, and opaque governance.
Great. Then we primary his ass. This isn’t about Bernie. This is about the ideas he espouses. If he makes those kinds of deals, we’ll crucify him too and everyone that follows. Let’s install a revolving door on the White House if that helps.
One big problem with this article and much of what is accepted
as proof of the Obama administrations “progressive”
accomplishments is that these things, especially
the so-called “Affordable Care Act,”
are NOT progressive in the way it is believed.
The only “progressive” aspect of the ACA is that it is
a step which progresses toward more corporate control.
It is NOT a step toward single payer and it undermines the possibility
of “medicare for all” by turning huge amounts of tax dollars
over to private insurance corporations and forcing everyone
onto private insurance policies.
If you can’t afford your privatized payments the ACA will
take tax dollars to push you into a private insurance account.
That Hillary Clinton’s advisers are in favor of more corporate control
is NOT that much different than the Obama administration.
The main difference is HOW they would entrap the people
for ever-more-expensive privatized profits.
As for “defending” Dodd Frank, why wouldn’t she?
Dodd Frank is a bogus “reform” and is another stepping away
from real progress. Dodd Frank is a scam to give
Wall Street more cover, not more regulation.
The devil is in the details and apparently in the delusional beliefs
of so many supposed “progressives.”
The point is not that the ACA was so great, because it wasn’t — the point is to expose her hypocrisy in acting like its protector while surrounding herself with its opponents.
The article states that these are
“Barack Obama’s progressive policy accomplishments”
as if that is an unquestionable fact.
Hillary Inc. is thoroughly infused with corporate corruption
(just as the Obama administration is)
and any accusation pointing out her “hypocrisy” seems to be
based upon someone believing that what she is
verbally embracing here is actually something “progressive”
when, in fact, it is simply a more devious form of corporatism
and is NOT only not progressive, but these are examples
of how her advisers didn’t get everything they wanted in the
corrupt bills cited.
Certainly, she is a corporate owned liar and brazen manipulator,
but so is the “progressive” (NOT) Obama.
Hillary’s “hypocrisy” is actually
typical standard operating procedures
for the democrats and republicans and, in that way,
she is being true to the democrats now-long-standing
corruption.
What they say is usually a lie to keep the suckers in line.
Clark, the article doesn’t “state” anything like that. It begins with a statement of one of the claims Hillary Clinton has been campaigning on. No endorsement of the truth value of that claim is automatically implied.
Good thing you are here though to let us know the ACA is not really that progressive. We had noooooooooo idea. You are totally blowing our minds with this shocking info.
I agree with Vic. The point of the article is to demonstrate that Hillary doesn’t even meet her own standard of “progressiveness” (i.e. defending ACA and Dodd-Frank). It doesn’t take any position on the validity of that standard.
The FIRST SENTENCE of the FIRST PARAGRAPH
states,
“Hillary Clinton is campaigning as a guardian of
President Barack Obama’s progressive policy accomplishments.”
NOWHERE does this even attempt to imply that these are
anything but progressive accomplishments
(which they are NOT).
The whole premise of the article is based upon the lie
that the ACA and Dodd Frank are progressive accomplishments
when they are both methods of increased corporate domination.
Obama and Clinton represent the same interests,
but I guess if you need to believe the bogus claim that these
are progressive schemes there is little reason for me to
continue pointing out the obvious synchronicity between
Obama’s fraudulence and Clinton’s fraudulence.
A matter of minute degrees of difference is all there is
between the two frauds.
Vic`
“We”, as in you and your pet-rock, Hudson? Or, were you referring to someone else?
I am old enough to have once had a pet rock given me as a gift.
Anyway, yes, I do think most of the people who read the Intercept are likely to regard the ACA as highly flawed at the very least, and a huge giveaway to the insurance industry. Hence my sarcasm. Your move, sock puppet.
Now THIS is journalism!
Damn, Lee, you are definitely on a roll!… EXCELLENT snag… keep it coming…
Bernie vs the democratic Machine. At least the GOP is honest about their platform.