Home | About | Donate

Indignation as Distraction: Team Clinton Goes on Offense to Play Defense


#1

Indignation as Distraction: Team Clinton Goes on Offense to Play Defense

John Atcheson

In the last Democratic debate, Hillary came out swinging, challenging Sanders on his statements about her “progressivism” and whether the millions she’s getting from Wall Street will influence her decisions should she become president. She hasn’t let up, and now a lot of her surrogates are piling on.


#2

"Hillary Clinton:

"Well, I don't know. That's what they offered."

Hillary is misleading us at best by saying that her $225,000 per speech fee, paid three times by Goldman Sachs, was "what they offered." It was not what they offered -- it was what Team Hillary demanded.

A review of her 2014 tax returnposted on her website, shows that $225,000 per speech was her minimum fee.

She received $225,000 for 34 of the 41 speeches listed on her tax return. Of the remaining 7 speeches, two were for 250,000 and the others for $265,000, $275,000, $285,000, $305,000 and $400,000. In total she received $9,680,000 for these speaking engagements in 2013."

Obscene, from Alternet: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/idea-hillary-clinton-took-200k-speech-banks-and-corporations-obscene


#3

The Clinton's pulling out all the stops, using tactics worthy of repubs.


#5

"Well, leaving aside for the moment whether an accurate portrayal of the facts can be labeled as a smear,..."

Been waiting for some pundit to make that obvious point. But I don't want to say more because don't want HRC supporters to feel even more put upon and harassed.


#6

The assumption that Hillary can easily beat any of the Republican clown-car candidates is a reminder of the old saying of what "assume" means - making an "ass" out of "u" and "me". Literally half of America either distrusts or outright hates her. The most common terms associated with her are "dishonest" and "liar". I have been saying for over a year now that she has an incredibly weak, political glass jaw, and even a Marco Rubio can crack it in a general election. My nightmare is her against a Rubio/Kasich ticket, I think the one ticket that could give the GOP a win in November, by putting both Florida and Ohio in the GOP column.


#7

Another excellent piece by Andrew Levine examines the history of Hillary Clinton & Co and her position and place in neo-liberal pro-corporate/banker politics in America and the subversion of the Democratic Party destroying its progressive legacy.


#9

Yes, I agree.
For me, the two things that are becoming more obvious as this way too long election season goes on and on, sucking up more and more money for the corporate media moguls.

1 Bernie does better against GOP candidates because he is better on the issues and more credible.

2 Clinton has so many that can't stand her on the Democratic side, Her craving wealth and power and how effortlessly she has climbed on the war band wagon, and her cozy relationship with Wall Street. Her moving to the left to keep up with Sanders is perceived as opportunistic and will continue to plague her campaign. Does she have anything besides dirty tricks going for her at this point?

[Forgive me for saying the obvious.]


#10

This phase of 'dog whistle politics' is now dominated by the media messaging of the likes of Goldman Sachs clawing to retain the de-regulated environment otherwise known as eliminating the RULE OF LAW. The major presence of that sector having bought leadership positions in the regulatory agencies, and documented failure we see all around us, is now doubling down in its attempts at media spin. Blankfein calls a return to the rule of law as "utopian".

The bizarre claims to real politic (to get things done you need an insider) is solidly centered in the above. When viewed from the perspective of a return to the rule of law, the predatory nature of the historical documentation becomes very clear. It also becomes clear why the dog whistle has so consistently been of always looking to the future - don't look back, and flies in the face of the actual necessity of learning from the past.

The Keiser Report has an interesting take on this
.


#11

Sanders is the one candidate [main] that is offering a way to save the capitalist system, in much the same way FDR did The rest of the bunch is hell bent on deepening this economic crisis that makes the continuation of capitalism only viable with more repression and the destruction of whats left of our democratic institutions.


#12

These underhanded, false attacks by Secretary Clinton says more about her than it does the proposed targets. She lashes out when cornered and goes the the most base and vile political attacks she, her family and campaign can muster in order to distract the capitalist, corporate media and voters from the real issues. The Republicans trot along way behind her in that respect.

I haven't read comments anywhere Sanders supporters attacking Secretary Clinton's supporters for being women. I guess stating facts is misogynistic bullying according to her and David Brock.


#14

As I listen to Hillary, here's the message I'm hearing: "It's all about me."

When I listen to Bernie, I hear: "It's all about you."


#15

"Her female supporters are the type of feminists who don't question the way in which women would "break the glass ceiling". Achievement is more important than WHAT you achieve."

Your statement is solid.

This idea of personal achievement is linked to Calvinism--the Protestant Ethic idea that IF you are doing well, you "obviously demonstrate" the blessing of God. To the contrary, if not, then YOU are to blame.

And it's Calvinism crossed with Mar-rules; and this is the reason why:

The premise of Mars, as an archetype and entity, is not just associated with militarism. It is the symbol of individual self-interest. That self-interest comes into play in all sorts of aggressive ways if put under threat.

That's why Goebbels explained that most people don't want war, but they can be made to go along with war IF they are told that they are under sufficient attack... and if that particular LIE is told often.

So what you are describing are women who, in reaching for power and a sense of self in a patriarchal system internalize the Mars-rules modus operandi which IS the governing principle in the U.S.A. After all, it is a military empire with 1000 bases around the world, its top chiefs of staff pretty much direct foreign policy (along with their Deep State doppelgangers) and HALF of the U.S. budget is earmarked for This Beast.

It takes a spiritually mature person to look past their own comfort zone to what's really taking place in the world around them. There are remarkable men who demonstrate this level of empathy and some women who lack it.

When someone like Hillary who is the Goldwater girl/neocon hawk repackages herself as a so-called Progressive, it diminishes the meaning and value of the term. This kind of counterfeiting is going on a lot. It's tainted the original premise of the Liberal, now the Progressive, and it's also eviscerating the ideals and humanitarian vision of the True Feminist.

Even the premise of Democracy has this taint. For after all, if citizens have ZERO say in implemented policies, what can voting mean?

I am going to post this item again, since I've brought it up often and it never seems to get much discussion. The "usual suspects" just return to the meme that blames THEM for what The Empowered Few do:

"Looking at statistical data, Gilens and Page, authors of “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens,” concluded:

"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. (emphasis added)."


#17

Rubio is obviously a puppet. There's a clip of him repeating the same line about Obama over and over again. FAR more dangerous would be Trump, Cruz, or Bush. Keeping the family tradition alive, Bush said that what was needed was an expansion of, get this, Intelligence!

Right.

The same argument that turns Hillary's assertion of experience around due to the FRUIT of said experience can be applied to so-called Intelligence.

Although I think most of the recent "terrorist" events were either direct inside jobs or assisted through FBI infiltration... the FACT that these events go on shows that Intelligence doesn't do a damned thing to stop them. And I think most people understand that the surveillance net is an omnipresence these days. That means the bastards HAVE the data. So either they are incompetent with this information OR they continue to rely on small terrorist disturbances to lend justification to their "trade."

When people who self-identify as Christian (Fundamentalist) talk openly about DESTROYING others and seem to relish the idea of using torture (always couched by this idea that it will be used to save cities or American lives)... those are some seriously sick cookies. And it's terrifying to see their followers cheer. These are the same ilk of persons who watched people torn limb from limb in the old Roman Arenas, and the same ones who couldn't wait to watch the next execution of "the witch" or the next Black man lynched out back.

They have ZERO understanding of the teachings of their own purported Master.

In my view, THAT is the anti-Christ. And it's thriving in certain sectors of our nation (and Europe).


#18

I watched the debate on DN this morning too. Amy has had on others defending Clinton in such debates. It has served to point out the difficulty finding someone to can defend Hilarity C. Maybe because she is indefensible?


#20

"Deepening the economic crisis" is not a formula for making capitalism viable. It IS a formula for ushering in the next step in the evolution of oligarchy...neofeudalism.

Hillary and the GOP are the advanced guard whose mission it is to make neofeudalism, happen post haste.


#21

Hillary Clinton sez: “Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he (Bernie sanders) is putting forth, which really comes down to—you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought,” Clinton said. “But you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received.”. Speaking fees can also be seen as after the fact rewards/kickbacks for services rendered......

Hillary's response was very carefully crafted, true only in the sense that her views and votes were not changed, but already decided - she never had to "change" anything! access to Hillary and other politicians are gifted to special interests when ordinary advocates and individuals are shut-out! Witness the TPP "negotiations" where those who would profit from that Trojan Horse scam were included in great numbers representing the winners, and public advocates and opponents with counter arguments were excluded - secrecy and a corrupted playing field the rule!

Corporate, banker/financial interests, fossil-fuel industry, big-pharma, et al ALL have access and the influence that generates to control "views" and votes! This is reminiscent of "what the definition of "is" is - a smarmy attempt to twist the truth of ones record and words - par for both Clintons, IMO! The "artful smears" attack by Hillary on Bernie a desperate attempt to defend by attacking, regardless the truth of her tactics!


#22

good point.


#23

I understand that the Democrats do not want to be outspent by the Republicans and therefore really have no choice but to take corporate money to stay in the game. And the major campaign finance reform bill called McCain-Feingold was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So what is the solution? Is there a path to tax-financed congressional campaigns? And democracy also is hurt by gerrymandering which seems to have left the Republicans in control of the House until at least 2022. How can that be addressed? Clearly a lot of reform is needed to get democracy back on track. Maybe this election is where it begins.


#24

They ARE repubs.
Hillary supported NAFTA, TPP (until she didn't), Tar sands pipeline (until she didn't), welfare "reform", big banking, Walmart, Monsanto. The list goes on and on for these corporate DINOs.
The Rodhams are a long line of Republicans and Hillary switched parties to become a Democrat for convenience. And the Corporate Democratic Party supports her 100% because she supports the corporations.


#25

Bill and Hill are running a business. Politics as business as usual, and they are shocked shocked that people object. I mean if you can't trade in on your experience and connections what is America coming to? That's basically Billary's position. This is why we had the spectacle of a Reagan Republican ( Jim Webb) running for Pres. on the (D) side earlier this yr. These people have no shame.