I don't fucking care how much they paid her.
You can bet if I had the star power to get paid $157 Million a year to talk for 15 - 20 minutes every couple months then I'd do it in a heartbeat and not apologize for it. She shouldn't be asked to.
Here's my problem with this.
1. "I'm not establishment."
Yes you the fuck are. Own it. Market it. You are claiming you have the inside track to get shit done where Bernie can't. Ya, well, that means you are establishment. You've got people paying you a shitload to talk. Just market the fact you have a close relationship with big money guys and plan to use that for the common good. Quit your bullshit over this.
2. "I'll look into it."
Really? You plan to function as Commander in Chief with that lack of decisiveness? Bull effing shit. YOU are the kind of person not afraid to tell a Secret Service agent to fuck off when they've earned it. I have no doubt whatsoever you could practically rip the gonads off Vladimir. You are as tough a woman as I've ever heard of and I respect that about you. So stop with the crap.
Yes I understand part of the deal with politician is the BS. THEY need to understand that we are sick of it. Yes we do need someone capable of triangulating and outmaneuvering the bad actors in the world but you can't go around bullshitting the people you want to work for. Not on this kind of stuff. If you do, we won't believe we can trust you to do what you say you'll do.
And that is my problem with Hillary. For all her talents and potentials... and she has MANY.... I just don't trust her to come through for me and mine. I'll vote for her in the general if I have to because I think she'll hurt me less than the Republicans.
Not exactly the best endorsement.
Apologies are irrelevant. What's done is done.
If she is so concerned about student cost of education why rip them off? She does not care about anyone but Hillary! Go Bernie!
Is EXACTLY why we need those transcripts! If she's any good at "reading the room" the contrast between what she has said in front of those two groups will be very telling...
At these private investor conferences, they just want a marquis name for two purposes. 1) draw a crowd. 2) imply connections...that usually don't really exist.
They paid her 200k to market her picture and her name because she'd got draw power. She could have stood up there and sung row row row your boat and nobody would have cared because by then, the room was packed. I saw Barney Frank at one of this things and, for the record, he would have been more coherent had he sung row row row your boat.
Standard DU primary season disclaimer (the long version this time):
I'm in Ohio. By the time the show gets here for our March 15 primary, it's like Highlander (There can be only one) so when people ask who my candidate is the answer is easy...the one with the little donkey lapel pin. I can't care right now because thoughtful Dems in 21 other states will have their opinions heard before mine. They will do the heavy lifting of sorting out who among the Dems will be our candidate. If they pick HRC, she gets my vote. If they pick Bernie, he will get my vote. If they pick Bugs Bunny, the rabbit gets my vote (ok - maybe I'll think more about this one). My point is not that I don't care. It's that living in Ohio, I've got work to do in the general and I can't get confused by wishing there was some other Dem on the ballot in November. It's counterproductive and a crazy maker.
I just don't think anyone is going to fork over that much money without expecting a return on their investment. But even if you are exactly correct and that's all there is to it, then the best you can say about it is HRC is allowing herself to be used as a tool for those interests.
1) this isn't "that much money". If they paid her 200k for a speaking gig it was at a conference where they probably paid 300k for the food, 350k for the liquor, and 100k for the exclusive use of a nearby country club golf course for the day. To Goldman, trying to buy influence for 200k is like you or me trying to buy it for 3 cents. Chump change.
2) they don't buy their influence in public. I am absolutely SURE that they buy influence but they do it with big dollars and they do it in private. They didn't get where they are by making deals in the cold light of day where you, me, anyone could scrutinize them. They have taken secrecy to a whole new level.
3) as I think the OP said in this, if they offered me 200k for 30 minutes work, I'd take it everyday of the week and twice on Sundays. To da' man with 200k in his hand let me say "use me up". lol. Seriously, if there's anyone out there who wants me to give a speech about what it's like to live on <50k a year these days, let me know and I'll forward you the name of my booking agent (Ms. CincyDem).
I'm not trying to be glib about the issue but I think Bernie is barking up the wrong tree here and he's getting traction on a topic that doesn't take him where we need to go.
Stay focused on the ease with which she sends young Americans - some of whom might have been our future great leaders - she votes to send them out to die in the sand to support American nationalism and oil interests.
Stay focused on the ease with which she "reframes" her position as easily as virtually every politician in America today when the circumstances require. I strongly support leaders changing their minds when new information comes to light but trying to rewrite history...sorry, not a fan of that.
Stay focused on her willingness to continue defense spending at an ungodly rate but has to "think about" spending a relative pittance of that money to educate (really really educate) our next generations without saddling them with debt up to their eyeballs that will create, in effect, a debtor generation.
Stay focused on her unwillingness to reinstate Glass-Stegall because "it's hard". Yeah - that's what Presidents do...they take on the hard jobs.
But this - 600k in speaking fees - these are empty calories in the informational diet we need to get on the right track. Everyday the media focuses on this is a day we're not focused on what could make a real difference. Say all you want about "what it means" that she took that money but it's small ball versus all the other things that say much more about what she means.
That said - my disclaimer needed in today's DU climate - I'm not a fan and if she's the Dem nominee in November, she's got my vote without question because she's a better choice than EVERY republican candidate.
Actually it is quite a bit of money. Even if it's only a small percentage of their bottom line, the fact remains they still have to answer to a board and to stockholders for 6 figure expenditures unless the money is coming out of their own personal pocket and I don't believe that is the case here. A corporation can only do so much in private. They are subject to audits and while they can certainly bury some things under "non-operating expenses" and conceal them from most shareholders, they still have to account for them at some level. Handing large amounts of money directly to a candidate covertly is still viewed as bribery by the FEC, which is why they operate through PAC funds, which are themselves accountable for any money given directly to a candidate. So the only practical method of funneling large amounts of money directly to a politician's bank account is through the speaking circuit.
You or I taking $200K for 30 minutes work is a no-brainer, but for a politician the very best you can say about it is it's influence peddling and it absolutely is the way people buy politicians. Now perhaps HRC is the outlier and is simply taking advantage of a perk many others are also making bank on without influencing her actions farther down the line, but I do think it's a very valid question that needs to be brought up during the election cycle, especially when one candidate is doing it and the other isn't.
Let's agree to agree on the principles (and likely the hoped for outcomes). Let's agree to disagree with the tactical details.
I would add:
Since we're on the topic of good corporate governance, a golden rule is don't pay for services in advance. The MOST time honored method of funneling money to a politician is the hire then AFTER their government tenure for an obscene salary with no real job responsibilities.
The last time a Board or shareholders held a financial services company accountable for anything - that was the day a unicorn walked across the floor of the NYSE. lol
HRC supported or still supports TARP, TPP, Keystone pipeline, offshore drilling, and she's been pretty silent on breaking up "too big to fail". So you are correct in that we diverge significantly on the "tactical details". So while past performance is no guarantee of future outcomes, I'd just as soon go with the candidate I'm pretty sure hasn't been prepaid or paid for services rendered contrary to the interests of the 99%. YMMV.
The point wasn't whether or not they hold themselves accountable. The point was whether or not they could funnel money under the table to a candidate directly as implied, which is a pretty good trick. I don't know of any past president that has gone on the payroll of a major corporation in the past few decades, so that strategy doesn't appear to be all that fruitful for this application.
I apologize if the title of my post hit you the wrong way.
My intention was to jokingly reference Senator Everett Dirksen to whom the quote is attributed "A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon we're talking about some real money". I assumed that was who you were referencing in the title of your post when you said something like "200k here, 200k there...it adds up".
Sorry that it came across as name calling, it was just intended to connect. Obviously didn't work.
What I've failed to communicate is that where I live (Ohio), we don't really get the luxury of having an opinion on the broader field. It's pretty well winnowed down by the time they get here so I save my energy for the general. Saving my energy means not getting caught up in primary differences that pale in comparison to what we'll see in the general.
I too would just as soon go with a candidate I'm pretty sure hasn't been prepaid or paid for services rendered contrary to the interests of the 99%. And if the 99% who vote before me in primaries & caucuses leave me with a November choice of HRC vs. TrumpCruzRubioKashichChristieCarson...I have no question where I land. You may be able to impact the primaries in a way I can't. That's great and I hope you prevail. As they say in Vegas - ya plays the cards you're dealt.
Feels like we're done here and I again, I apologize if I hit a nerve. Have a good one.
But at $7.25 an hour, it represents 82,758.62 hours of work. At 2,800 hours a year, that is 29 and a half years. If you start working at $7.25 per hour at the age of 20, you are nearly 50, around 49 by the time you have earned $600,000. Hillary earned that in a few hours.
Just to put things in perspective.
If you earn $50,000 per year, it takes you 12 years to earn $600,000.
So everything depends on your perspective.
And the question is whether Hillary's perspective distances her too far from people who are earning $7.25 per hour or $50,000 per year, their problems, their broken hearts, their unreachable goals, their faded dreams.
I think so. I do not think that her views on things like single payer, like free tuition at state schools, like our military budget, like what is a living wage in America, like whether the money donated to her campaign and paid her for her speeches and given to her foundation are bribes or not reflect a perspective that represents most of us.
Somehow FDR was able to see things from the perspective of the common person. Hillary does not seem to be able to see things as FDR did. She would have different views on a lot of issues if she did.
She says we as a nation cannot afford what ordinary people need. That is a matter of perspective. We can afford the things that we as a people believe we really need. It is a question of who is to forego what. Are young people to forego education so that a very wealthy man can have a bigger yacht and a larger private plane?
Somehow, it boils down to a question of values. What do we just want? What do we really need -- as a nation?
That I think is the perspective and those are the questions of most of us, especially the youth.
It all depends on your perspective.
I seriously doubt, on the other hand, that Hillary said anything questionable or that will embarrass her in any of her public or private speeches.
Release the damn transcripts Madam Secretary!!! Hillary Controls the TRANSCRIPTS from her speeches... DEMAND THAT SHE RELEASE THEM AND FACE PUBLIC SCRUTINY! Like and SHARE WIDELY! https://www.facebook.com/Hillary-Be-Accountable-Release-The-Damn-Transcripts-209952662689158/?skip_nax_wizard=true
may I steal it with changes to personalize it for my state and my primary voting date which is in April?
nothing wrong with learning more and getting informed before making decision. I thought we got over that with Dubya and his "gut" that was supposed to be so "leader" like.
There's nothing complicated about committing to releasing anything you have the legal right to release. There's no "looking into it." She's either open to being more transparent or she's not. If she is then say so and work out the details later.
We aren't talking about how to handle Somali or Yemen, were talking about her own personal business.
and would beg the question, why would anyone pay her for that info?
She nor any other politician would be crazy to say anything concrete
about favors of any kind.
These kinds of transactions come with a wink wink, although I do believe
the release would be quite damaging. Chuck Toady may have finally
done something in his career he can be proud of. I know he shocked
me when I heard him ask the question.
The actual question came from a viewer, but he did make the choice to ask it.
People misspelll his name far too often.
that prevented her from doing it.
So much for transparency... remember that lie?
Or, maybe that's what Hillary meant by being transparent... she was referring to allowing us to see through her deceptions.
It's time for an honest politician... it's time for Bernie!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
to try to get the struggling 99%.
It comes off as insincere.
I am very happy that she got millions of children healthcare coverage.
But, what about the millions of adults who are still uninsured or underinsured?
What about the millions who are still paying too much and getting too little?
Promising to keep the ACA is a death sentence to these people.
Can't she see that?
And that is just one of many positions that I just can't swallow.
We need a revolution. Keeping the status quo means going backwards because the 99% are losing ground every day.
I will also vote for her in November, if I MUST. But, I won't like it. And I might need to go out and get a prescription for sleeping pills so I can sleep at night for the next 8 years.
Fingernails on a blackboard sounds like Bach compared to that fake, forced, cackle.
They paid HER. Why should they need to do anything for her. If they were close, she would allow them to pay less for her speeches than others. This would give them a reason to come to bat for her "to get things done" that don't necessarily benefit them. IMHO
The Oregon seditionist hid under a blue tarp. Hillary's tarp is so faint a blue it's bland.
She's sloganeering her way through Iowa and New Hampshire. Her interviews with the media are dull, flat-spirited, bland. She is not a natural campaigner.
Politicians come in many flavors, but often the successful ones share a knack for communicating with their audience. Birch Bayh. Not his son. But Birch Bayh. Bella Abzug. Just two examples.
Other politicians have the solid instinct but are not showy or extraverted and so they speak substance to audiences without visible folksiness. Shirley Chisholm. Lowell Weicker (one of a very very few Republicans I actually like).
Others are more strident yet quite substantive, too. Paul Wellstone. Bernie Sanders.
The Clinton campaign is not self-reflective. If it were, it would boast a campaign circle of advisors who could approach the candidate and tell her she is losing ground, why she is losing it, and what might be done to reverse the damage.
The meeting should begin with one such advisor telling the candidate, "You have more money than God, you've been setting up a field operation in Iowa for essentially three years, you have more name recognition than any other woman in the world, and some guy nobody ever heard of a few months ago almost kicked your butt in Iowa. Are you ready to entertain significant adjustments, Secretary Clinton?"
If she had anybody around her who would actually tell her where the cow ate the cabbage she would never say things like "Henry Kissinger thought I did a good job".
Instead she surrounds herself with toadies, sycophants and ass kissers who tell her exactly what she wants to hear, instead of what she needs to hear. She isn't the first politician in recent times to be so paranoid as to attempt to shield herself from the truth. The last one also kept an enemies list and told us he was not a crook.
becomes then the model for her would-be administration should she prevail for the nom and win the general.
Whether Bernie defeats her for the nomination is not secondary -- it's the whole thing -- but on the list of secondary things is why she does not understand the reasons he's packing arenas. He is. It's indisputable. She's not doing badly on that count, but her audiences are not like his. Nowhere close, really.
There are reasons for that difference and Clinton doesn't seem eager to give those differences much thought.
and for that reason doesn't focus on what needs to be focused on. If that is so perhaps she doesn't to hear negatives.
because I really don't know the course of the problem, and know only the whatever the source it, the problem itself is visible.
True in 08 also. There was a post-Iowa phone call HRC placed to her inner team, blaming them for the third place finish, and ending with, "I find this very instructive."
I'd be happy for you, as one of the 'ordinary' citizens of this country.
I hope you can manage to get a gig. Won't hurt me or my grandchildren at all.
in high-roller boardrooms.
Better clean up your language before you address Goldman Sachs.
Did you lecture Vice President Biden about cleaning up HIS language after he said, "Big F-ing Deal" to the President of the United States on a live mic during a live nationwide broadcast in the middle of the day?
Not that it matters to you, but the f-bomb comment was directed at KentuckyWoman.
She took it well.
that my career, or more accurately lack of career, as a high-paid public/private speaker has been derailed this whole time by one f***ing word...
it does keep me from stuttering, though
I'll vote for her in the general "because she'll hurt me (us) less than the Republicans". Sad.
I don't want a Commander-in-Chief - or a candidate, for that matter - to give off-the-cuff promises when they don't have all of the information.
I know that in this, 24-hour, news-in-an-instance media world we're in now, people may get impatient when they don't get an answer in 10 seconds. But responsible, mature leaders don't make promises in answer to questions tossed at them by a reporter in a debate unless and until they know they can keep it.
And because it is very likely that Hillary did not know while she was standing there in that moment, 1) whether there are transcripts; 2) who has them; 3) if she does not control them, can she make someone release them and, if so, what is the process and timing for doing that, she would have been a fool to say, "Yes, SURE!" and then have to walk it back the next day if she had spoken too soon.
This is not a life-or-death matter and nothing is going to change if you don't see those transcripts in the next hour. In fact, I doubt that most of the people who are screaming the loudest for them even knew there may be any transcripts until Thursday night - and now, suddenly, they cannot function unless they have them and have them now.
This is much ado about nothing. While we certainly want our Commanders-in-Chief to be decisive and prompt, we also don't need any more shoot-from-the-hip, "I'm gonna say what I think no matter what the consequences and then fix it later if it blows up in our faces" presidencies. I want my president to take the time to "look into" things before they make commitments.
"'Because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak.' - President Obama, in response to a reporter's question about why he didn't condemn AIG bonuses immediately upon learning that they had been awarded.
I'm not taking issue with her knowing what she's talking about.... all the little details of each of those speeches. In some cases "I'll look into it." is the appropriate answer. It conveys a taking of responsibility.
In this case it was meant to be a dodge. If she was committed to transparency then it's not that difficult to tell us she'd be happy to release anything that does have transcripts that she has the legal right to release. Qualify the statement sure. That is fair.
transcript, she shouldn't have said anything other than exactly at she said. If you watch the exchange, she was in the middle of making a point and Todd's question was not directly related to it. I had the impression she was trying to respond to him and get back to her point as quickly as possible. She couldn't blow him off but I'm sure she did not want to get drawn off by having to think of and then launch into the perfectly legalistic answer - which would have left her open to accusations that she was parsing and being too cute by half. She answered his question, said she'd look into it and went back to her point. I think it was exactly the appropriate response.
We'll have to agree to disagree, but I really think you're nitpicking here.
IT IS IN THE FUCKING CONTRACT!
... other than to make sure her staff hides those transcripts.
Nothing will change if the transcripts aren't available within the hour, you're right. But if they're not available to be reviewed before the vote, then that changes things.
My perception (which is all I have without the transcripts) is that she's hiding something, that the transcripts might reveal a cozying-up to bankers, wall street, insurance execs, and big pharma, at the expense of mere citizens.
Other than that, an honest post that touches on some of my conclusions about a Clinton presidency, too.
I WISH that I didn't feel that way. Hillary is TOUGH, smart, and incredibly knowledgeable about the job. And I'd love to have a woman president.
I've often thought that President Obama, and to a lesser extent the Clintons, were masters at walking the line between getting some good stuff done for the people while still fully satisfying the elites. Case in point, ACA. I've been grateful to them for at least providing a viable alternative to the dreadful GOP.
But the "greed complex" which links big business and billionaires to the government that serves them has nearly killed us. It's time to tackle this difficult root problem because we can't make progress or undo the consequential damage to the American public of the decisions made in service to the elites over the last 35 years.
is very telling.
And exactly why HRC has been bought, sold, and bought again by the banking industry.
But she'll make a fine VP.
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
unless you can write those big six-figure checks, you don't matter to her.
Hillary has nothing financially to gain by being POTUS. She comes out behind on that score. If she was all about the money she'd be out collecting paychecks instead of subjecting herself to all the slings and arrows that come with a national campaign. Not to mention the grueling schedule on her over 60yr old body.
Your claim is ridiculous and I encourage you to retract it.
it probably means you have a heart and soul and a normal, human sized ego.
Poster said she's only it in for the paycheck and that makes no sense. She'd get more money in her wallet over the next 4-8 years NOT being POTUS. She'd be free to milk every penny out of the establishment if she's not POTUS. With her star power she doesn't need the title to get the bucks.
Ego I can agree with, but not money.
A president shouldn't cave. She tests which way the wind is blowing and caves to pressure.
in a full and full sense is Bernie.
We need a authentic progressive in the White House who can get things done, a true leader... President Sanders! Go Bernie!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
You are correct-she should just own it. The problem is that many Democrats don't like the idea of Wall Street candidates, thus Hillary has to do the "I'm just like you" dance. It's really embarrassing when you get right down to it.
Progressive, no bullshit, cares about young people and the future of the country. She would not be in it for the money and power but just to improve lives.
30+ years of her and Wild Willie, in our face over something...and there have been a LOT of somethings, real or not.
I'm over it.
No More Clintons.
for the two big banks pushing the KeystoneXL just before announcing her run for president. She's not an expert on the Canadian banking system as far as I know .... could be wrong.
prison corporations ......
No one gives up $170M to someone they know will bring them into line once he/she is elected.
You notice: not a penny to Bernie Sanders.
The "they" know what to expect from a President Sanders and they know what they paid to expect from President Clinton.
It really is that simple, isn't it?
Let's be honest. She's been working for the presidency for a long time. Some say since the late 90s. Personally I think earlier, but I don't think there is much doubt that she's been preparing a run since the 2008 loss. Consequently this can't be seen as completely the activity of a person for private reasons (although I've heard attempts to make the 'private citizen' argument on leftwing radio*)
That said, a relevant question is how important was giving those speeches to her preparation for this run? I think it was pretty important. She leans neo-liberal (by which I mean she's been friendly financials deregulation, free-trade agreements, and pretty accepting of privatization). Now that isn't terribly surprising since that philosophy been quite popular in elite circles for the past 30 years or so. And, perhaps importantly, that's the timeframe in which she grew her appetite for politics and high office.
So, in seeking her run at power, it's important for multiple reasons that she projected herself with being aligned with that philosophy. That philosophy is after all what the smart/pragmatic politicians do. And while some of us disagree with it, it's been successful in American and in Europe, too. So she gave speeches to groups that allowed her to show alignment with the philosophy and to also make valuable connections that would facilitate a presidential run with dominant, some would argue overwhelming financial support. Taking hundreds of thousands while shoring up her relationships with potential sources of campaign money has all the markings of a win-win. It surely contributed to her restoration after the problem of being broke after leaving the WH.
And that's where some of the problem likely lies... at a destination on the path of the democratic party that Clinton didn't expect to be encountered...broad disenchantment with New Dem/Third-way neoliberalism. New Dem politics have never been especially popular with the democratic left. But the left, had no power, and no options. You know that left...the progressive left, people who New Dems/neoliberals have publicly and privately disdained with similar vitriol to Emmanuel's remarks about them being F'ing Ret***s. People who were out there on the left criticizing politics/economics when the 2008 crash and the lopsided recovery happened. People who the base suddenly noticed when in their disenchantment with the lopsided recovery the moved left, and took their expectations for the democratic party with them. Clinton's investment was based on status quo politics, the shift in the base suddenly gave the left an option, and they're run cheering toward that exit, and the visages of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders standing at the door.
The problem with Clinton's speechs is that they mattered to her, very much. They were part of her disciplined preparation for her presidential run in 2016 It's clear that many years ago, she made a serious, seemingly well considered, strategic decision about how to establish herself to make this run. Among many things she did (in what truly must be greatly respected as a long and disciplined positioning that -really did- lead to her being the best prepared candidate for the race she -thought- she would be in), she aligned herself with the power elite...those with money and corporate power. Sadly, the race isn't what she thought it was going to be. The shift left of the democratic base who feel the economic disparity of the lopsided recovery has changed their attitude about the failing of neo-liberalism long supported by New Dems that has left people disaffected about corporate wealth, the oligarchy and privilege it creates and maintains, as well as reconsideration of the policies (including Bill Clinton era policies) that led to the 2008 crash. Perhaps it's led to popular resentment of those who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars as paid performers for the oligarchs. The "system" as Elizabeth Warren has plainly said is rigged, and this is where those big payments for short workdays really matter: Hillary is perceived as having benefited by that, and the more people look at her time as first lady, senator, and secretary of state they see reflections of HRC as having a long association with what in 2016's climate is seen as the sad path that took us here.
Is that fair? Well, certainly it wouldn't feel that way to HRC. All she did was work at aligning herself with those who pretty obviously were empowered to help her make her run at being the first Madam President. It wouldn't feel that way to supporters of New Dem politics who also align themselves with neo-liberal thirdwayism.
I really like your post and thank you for it. Could easily be it's own OP.
Gave me something important to think about...... and at first blush I don't at all disagree with you.
I'll take the original, thank you very much!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
The problem with Clinton's speechs is that they mattered to her, very much. They were part of her disciplined preparation for her presidential run in 2016 It's clear that many years ago, she made a serious, seemingly well considered, strategic decision about how to establish herself to make this run. Among many things she did (in what truly must be greatly respected as a long and disciplined positioning that -really did- lead to her being the best prepared candidate for the race she -thought- she would be in), she aligned herself with the power elite...those with money and corporate power
which side are you on boys,which side are you on?
our leaders can not serve the 99% while protecting the 1%
Because these are the people she's supposed to protect us from if she's president. But when they pay her so much money who is she beholden to? NOT US. IF she's handed the nomination by the DNC and IF Bernie doesn't run as an independent THEN I'll hold my nose and vote for her.
Christie told people at one of his town halls, "We should be so lucky to run against a 74 year old socialist", "But we need to keep working hard because i don't believe bernie will be the nominee".
This is why Sanders can win. Christie and his ilk think it will be a walk in the park....and that "socialism" will scare people to death. (not to mention the age discrimination) None of the red baiting sticks.
The GOP has been strategizing about how to beat Clinton for a decade now. They don't know what to do with Sanders.
and all they kept saying was that he was a "tax and spend liberal". The word 'Liberal' was strong enough a label to use against Dukakis without ever having to call him the scarier label of Socialist. I remember that campaign, Dukakis won 110 electoral votes that year.
They are based on examples of the this society pre 2010 crash, pre- 9/11 crash, pre Blue Monday crash and pre-Reganomics.
The American society is vastly different. The middle class is gutted and has been gutted for 25+ years.
The Big 3 news organizations cannot shape the narrative like they did. Hell, the 24 hour cable channels cannot shape the narrative like they did.
So, this is a different America from the one you are basing your argument on.
Yeah, she has "the inside track to get shit done".......for the big banks.
But, that probably is to easy. Better to have someone (who has nothing better to do) kowtow to folks that will find something else to bitch about. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Hillary+Clinton+speaks+women+at+to+Goldman+Sachs&&view=detail&mid=03996A4A5D0AE3C5B8A003996A4A5D0AE3C5B8A0&FORM=VRDGAR
Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton a quarter of a million dollars to make a speech at one of their little soirees because they were interested in what she had to say reveals more about them than it does her.
I would say ... and so would every other person with the least little bit of honesty.
It has been debunked already and it is insulting to all Sanders supporters and you know that.
It's the basis of their entire industry!
I will say this voting for a candidate as the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil..
Just market the fact you have a close relationship with big money guys and plan to use that for the common good. Quit your bullshit over this.
We know she plans on protecting wall street. She has no interest in taking the necessary steps to protect us from wall street. She will do a little bit, but not enough.
She is the candidate of the establishment wing of our party. She represents the culmination of 35 years of chasing special interest money and triangulating to steal the issues fro the Republicans. Many in our party consider this strategy a huge success. So embrace it. If that's the way you roll, then keep rolling. Many people in our party think this is the way we should do things. We have certainly been conditioned to think this is the safe route, the surest way to retain the presidency. The pundits and experts agree nominating a democratic socialist is wading into unknown waters, and they're telling us we'll lose if we do so. Clinton will be better off if she stays true to herself and does not pretend to be a progressive, even a progressive who gets things done. She just gets things done, whether or not they're progressive things. Some of them are, and others not so much. This does not matter a whole lot to many people, maybe even enough people to get her elected. But many of them will not vote for her if they detect waffling, uncertainty, retreat, etc. That's not her image, and people expect to see assertiveness, definite decisions, and such from her.
Before you vote for an establishment candidate, or any candidate who does not represent your values, think long and hard about the moral price you pay for that. Don't do that to yourself.
all of Bernie's supporters just refused to vote or went with the Greens.
Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.
I want a president who investigates and gathers as many facts as possible before deciding.
are going to good use in NH, paying for outsourced push polls and mercenary canvassers. it's almost a successful illusion of democracy!
Judgment is clouded when one is beholden to another.
Sure it's speculation. There is no other explanation.
There have to be some organizations that HC would NOT accept paid speaking fees from. There has to have been an instance, since she was secretary of state that she has had to decided, "that would look bad if I collected speaking fees from that organization." Goldman Sacks is not dirty enough to make that cut. What I want to know is, who is? If she does not agree with Goldman's practices, I would think that accepting their money would be blood money?