Home | About | Donate

Clinton’s Defense of Big Money Won’t Cut It


Clinton’s Defense of Big Money Won’t Cut It

Robert Borosage

Hillary Clinton’s heated defense of the money she has raised from Wall Street and other interests won’t cut it. Her protests contradict the basic case that virtually all Democrats and reformers have made for getting big money out of politics. It is vital that voters not be misled by them.


Her Inevitableness' Clothes are truly revealing...


First Reich, now Borosage, what is this, concession day. Pieces in this genre are popping up all over, check out Kuttner with his Hillary-Warren ticket promotion, David Corn at Mother Jones is a shameless apologist, even OpEd News is sprinkled with throw in the towel pieces. Hillary is a Goldwater Girl and always will be a Goldwater girl, and where does this come from: "Most Democrats, certainly all reformers including Clinton, embrace the substance of the arguments he (Bernie) makes..." BS



Clinton's RHETORIC does indeed "embrace the substance of the arguments Bernie makes". A quarter century of Clintons in DC and NYC has proven they are second to none in embracing whatever rhetoric it takes to get elected.

More than using her "Obama defense" to neutralize the reputation of the corporate money she is awash in, Clinton frequently uses it to embed her lie that Sanders disrespects Obama, a very successful strategy for gaining black votes.

Looks like the Koch brothers are anxious to help Hillary spread her "message" even further.


Remember the cunning ad? "You're known by the company you keep."

Why doesn't Mr. Borosage see the following as cause for an indictment against Obama's character:

"President Obama staffed his administration at its highest levels with former bankers and corporate lawyers. The Attorney General and the head of the criminal division came from and returned to a corporate law firm representing many of the bankers that should have been prosecuted. Not surprisingly, they worried publicly that prosecuting the banks might endanger the recovery."

The greater crimes are the continued push for foreign wars and the enthusiastic lies used to sell the TIPP and TPP.

Obama was hired as a salesman for policies that the 1% wish to see implemented.

That kind of sell-out, while playing the ROLE of President who cares for citizens is a sickening testament to major character flaws; and Mrs. Clinton also shows major symptoms of the same disease!

From the article:

"No Democrat doubts President Obama’s character."

Speak for yourself, Mr. Borosage.


Immediately after the election Obama in effect, announced that his change slogan was a fraudulent, empty promise: With a majority in both Houses he said he wanted to work with Republicans (euphemistically, bipartisanship): Could he have been any clearer, without explicitly saying his campaign was a con job?


How wonderfully selfless Hillary's major contributors are! They expect nothing from their millions given to the HRC Dem campaign.......quid pro quo? Impossible sez the Red Queen! I have never made, or altered, a decision based on campaign-contribution bribes! Million $ "speaking" fees? Imposserous!
Name one time, one decision I made based on bribes........

Money and open corruption are destroying our republic and something must be done! Even with the usual suspects corrupting, media manipulations rampant, crony shills swearing HRC is the best thing (& woman) since sliced bread........even with all the truly evil forces of greed and self-interest, the lumpen electorate are still culpable! Ignorance is no excuse of the law or politics! The highly malleable electorate are sheep, ready and willing to follow the leader and be shorn, part of our slide into national oblivion!


Then they must not be paying attention.


Fro a third party to get off the ground, we need some form of instant--runoff or preferential voting, In casting your vote, you would vote also for your second choice. If no candidate won a majority, the preferences of the candidate with the lowest number of votes would be distributed to the other candidates..

This would mean you would not be wasting a vote in voting for the 3rd Party candidate, would ensure that the elected candidate would be the choice of a majority, not just a plurality, of the voters, would give voters choice not just limited to 2, and it would enable a much needed third party to get off the ground.


The irony of all this is the only way that we can get the money out of politics is to elect enough Democratic members to Congress to get that done but to do that takes corporate money to defeat the Republicans. Sanders is a special case. No other politician has that many small donors willing to keep give money despite the long odds of winning. That can't be duplicated for people running for Congress. So basically the only way to defeat corporate money is to accept corporate money. Nobody else has spelled out another path. In this case the Democratic establishment happens to be right.


"No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." -Animal Farm, George Orwell


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Hillary is a hostess and that is her only skill set.
When asked how she could accept the large sums of money from banks for her speaking fees she simply said "that's what they offered". That, is the response of a prostitute. It is past time for a Woman to President but, how about a doctor or a short order cook with some skills, instead of...Monsanto's whore.


No rich person that I have ever known and, I've known many, gives away any money without expecting a lot more in return than what they gave.

Please don't try to convince me that foundations and charitable contributions are altruistic. They are about transferring money out of the country when the dollar collapses and tax reductions. Of course, tax reductions are all subsidized by the 99%.


I'm presently reverberating from watching Seymour Hersh (who I formerly highly respected) interviewed on today's "Democracy Now." Very demoralizing to see him lend cover to a number of Official Stories. It's gotten to the point where ANY pundit with nicely paid gigs in the New York Times or any "paper of record" seems to gain those honors from not questioning the core triggers that require exposure to the Light... if ever the disease that's gotten hold of our nation is to be shaken lose so that real healing can take place.

Lies are the collateral of deceivers and there hasn't been an honest politician since Carter. (Sanders... being an exception... and of course, Nader.)


This would be relatively easy to install. Other nations use it, and it's so much better than the nonsense passing for fair, open elections in the USA, today.


His Story: and "not one :'Democrat' doubts Obama's character"???? I do....
unless you mean the Democratic Obama cultists, who are ALMOST as deaf, dumb and blind as the
Hillary Cultists. You can't get any worse than the Hillary Cultists.


Swagman: you got it ! Obama is the biggest con job of them all - even worse than Bill Clinton, which was bad enough.


Last Sunday there was an interview with Charles Koch where he surely implied he'd be willing to accept a Clinton presidency: SCARY! Bloomberg.com/businessweek has an amazing article "How to Hack an Election" describing how Andres Sepulveda rigged elections for almost a decade, beginning in '05. I had already read "Clinton Cash" and remembered many names mentioned in the article were also characters associated with the Clintons, cross-checking and making mental notes. Then I went to orbooks.com and got "My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency" by Doug Henwood, and AGAIN noticed the weird tactics to foil elections used by Andres were used by Hillary in '08 and are again so in this election. I encourage ALL to investigate - before it's TOO late!


and what about the infamous Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
The Dem Party is full of characters.