If you're looking for Hillary Clinton, Amy Chozick and Jonathan Martin observed in Sunday's edition of the New York Times, the best place to start is usually among "the country's most moneyed enclaves," where the former Secretary of State has been busy partying with Jimmy Buffett and ensuring her donors that "she would approach business leaders more like Mr. Clinton did during his administration, which was widely considered amicable to the private sector."
Most people can see and feel that the weather is getting steadily hotter.
Yet studies are done to prove the point.
Similarly, the phrase "quid pro quo" is in wide use because it's almost always true. That is, if someone pays for a favor (or preferential treatment), they're likely to get it. Otherwise, they won't "give" again.
So while it may be useful to see a study reinforce the obvious, it's still patently obvious:
"In their classic study examining the "right turn" of the American political establishment, Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers argue that, ultimately, policy decision-making comes down to the interests of the investors, those who funnel money into the political system expecting results in return, not the interests of the population as a whole."
CD recently had one writer post statistics showing that close to 80% of U.S. citizens don't trust the established roster of politicians because most understand that they're paid off to sell the population (and its interests) out.
As I have mentioned in several CD posts during the past month, Clinton is NOT on summer vacation or being treated for an undisclosed illness, both hypothesis advanced by several CD posters. I reiterated that, like Obama, most of Clinton's domestic travel is NOT to make public appearances, her travel is focused on venues in the tech centers and power centers to collect boatloads of money from her bag men and reassure them that TPP will be a done deal during her first hundred days.
With each passing day more proof emerges that Clinton is even better at corporate fundraising than Obama is.
She doesn't need or want progressives around her asking revealing questions.
She is picking up the support she knows we won't give her, from Republicans.
In fact I'm more than a little concerned about what she may do once in office to silence the progressive swell. She won't be nice about it that's for sure.
What Hillary Clinton was doing raising money was for progressives, only many have too much a knee-jerk reaction against fund raising to realize it. Most of the money raised will be going for congressional races. She is smart enough to realize she can't do anything progressive if both houses of the Congress are controlled by the Republicans. Bernie Sanders knows that as well. She has a fairly progressive agenda and is running on a progressive platform as a result of Sander's efforts. If the Bernie Sanders campaign is going to actually pay off the Democrats have to do better in winning Congressional seats even if Clinton wins. All the money given to Sanders and all the volunteering on his behalf will go down the drain if the Republicans again control both the House and Senate.
Flagged as inappropriate.
Check out this YouTube promotion by Hartmann of the Demo witch. He is absolutely vile in his comments.
Thom called Stein a "bottom feeder".
Well, the Queen of Darkness certainly has Thom Hartmann in her back pocket, or her pocketbook, or whatever she carries the hundreds of millions in. Holy cow. Is this a new Hartmann or has he a split personality. The vile venom coming out of his mouth is unbelievable. What a manipulative SOB.
Is this a Hartmann a "doppelgänger"?
Excuse me? You must be deliberately blind. This forum does not have a problem with fund-raising per-se, it is where the funds are coming from. Jake Johnson has verbalized what we've known since Bernie conceded the primary. HRC's hard right swing, and her contempt for progressives became obvious with her VP pick and support of the corrupt DWS. And it has been all down-hill from there.
Loved Hartmann during the Bush years, quit listening when he turned into a Dem apologist after Obama took office.
Any faint hopes that Clinton was sincere about fighting for progressive values were certainly smashed when she named Kaine as her VP and Salazar as the transition team head -- or should I say should have been smashed, given that so many of them still plan to vote for her regardless.
Wall Street's Witch cast a glamour
to make everyone see who they want
Neocons see her talking loudly
and carrying a big dick
Neoliberals see trade deals and austerity measures
Lesbians see a supporter of marriage equality
Feminists a woman President
Pseudo-Progressives see a would-be progressive
awaiting only the application of fire
The spell has erased the past
and makes the present seem pregnant
And, in fact, the witch is pregnant
her belly spikes obscenely
as if a porcupine of
missiles and gun barrels
was slouching down the birth canal
waiting to be born.
Thank you. This response has me feeling that I'm not alone in my outrage. Also, there are at least 23 female heads of state in this our present world. The US is a retrograde social order.
I don't believe repelling progressives is "hard" at all for Clinton. I believe it comes quite naturally to a "Neo Liberal=Neo Conservative" like her.
Neo this and Neo that. As soon as one hears or reads "Neo-anything", he/she should know that he/she is entering a circle of hell. It's only a question of which one.
The Clinton campaign knows that after easily corralling Sanders' identity voters, getting Sanders' issues voters into her corral will be a much more difficult task. In addition to Maddow, Hartmann and Clinton's other mass media gunners, her trollmaster David Brock has millions in his budget for trolls to discourage issues voters from supporting anybody other than Clinton by reiterating Hartmannesque bottom feeder rhetoric on sites such as CD.
i used to listen to Hartmann on Air America. Now they carry him on a local independent station here.
i don't follow him, but i happened to tune in a few months back and heard him say "The Democrats have two excellent candidates in Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton." Just. Wow.
It's very difficult for me to believe that he could actually believe that Clinton is an "excellent candidate."
Hi have read and listened to Thom H for years. I think Thomas Frank is a little better especially as of late.
So it's down to a phony democrat and Donald Trump. Voting is our right in this country. The way the argument is being framed is that if I use my vote the way I want to, i.e. Not HRC not Trump, then it's a wasted protest vote letting the other side win. Principles don't matter but votes do. Yea right. So if someone claiming to be a progressive leader, writer, talk show host needs to denigrate those who seem to share similar values just because they want to vote their conseience, fearing the other side will win, then why bother paying attention to anything? How about if you're a democrat, than your vote automatically goes to the democratic candidate. Same with the republicans. Since this argument pops up every 4 years, just put your name down with a d or r in some voting database and that way 3rd party candidates don't need to waste everyone's time. And the voting lines will be soooooo much shorter.
Sanders' defection from the revolution is already resulting in more of his former supporters in my area to not only shy away from Clinton, but also shy away from down ticket Democrats.