For those puzzled by the rancor and mistrust so many feel for Hillary Clinton, a lucid Matt Taibbi looks at Clinton's $675,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs to reveal they're about not just money but allegiance. Turns out Clinton declared that "banker-bashing (was) foolish," it takes a village to get out of a financial crisis (in fact caused by a few greedy oligarchs), and public anger is something "we" - oligarchs and Clintons - need to wait out.
"Governments do not rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world."
From the linked Rolling Stone article:
The Lloyd was peeved that Sanders, whom he's never met, singled him out in a debate last week. "Another kid from Brooklyn, how about that," he lamented.
He ranted about how frightening it is that a candidate like Sanders, who seems to have no interest in "compromising" with Wall Street, could become so popular.
"Could you imagine," he asked, "if the Jeffersons and Hamiltons came in with a total pledge and commitment to never compromise with the other side?"
Gosh, I don't know. Maybe a duel?
The "tell" is that he's only concerned about Sanders, et al. No worries, apparently, about Republicans (Tea Party or otherwise), let alone Hillary...
Once again Hillary is lying through he smiling teeth.
Her disingenuous assertions that impropriety or appearance of impropriety created by taking money from certain industries doesn't exist are completely contradicted by her own campaign. Not 4 months ago they trumpeted with righteous indignation she would no longer be accepting money from the Private Prison Industry... an industry she helped create, and she knew would be used as a wedge issue against her by the Sanders campaign and would cost her minority voters...
Aren't we, therefore, free to assume she generally agrees with the policies and consequences of operations of all the other industries she is taking money from? Or that it is, at minimum, reasonable to recognize and point out impropriety or appearance of impropriety and possible conflicts of interest with certain contributions?
Of course it is...
I have to admire Hillary. She dared to unselfishly go undercover as a board member for both Walmart and Monsanto so she could see how to fix the USA from the inside of the boardroom. How many of us mortals would be willing to sell our souls to make such a sacrifice? She protected us from good wages and made sure we got our minimum daily dose of GMOs and glyophosphates. And she sneaked into Goldman Sachs sacrificing real income while she accepted pittance token payments for speaking.
By combining the slogans of Walmart's "Always Low Prices" and Monsanto's "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible", we can get Hillary's new campaign slogan:
"Always Low Clintons - Without Hillary, Life itself would be Impossible."
good luck with that project. i've never encountered a more hardheaded gaggle of "I'm a tree!"s in my political life. They're fundamentally dishonest, dis- and mis-informed, and willfully refuse any information that isn't vetted by some of the most subservient establishment media in existence (If it ain't in the NYT, it ain't true!)
I know a lot of these people, and my conclusion is simple but ultimately depressing, since it charts what went wrong with the Ds many years ago:
Her support is far more conservative than even they wish to believe. They abhor measures of economic justice since those issues affect them personally. The buy into the conservative myth that much of American poverty is the fault of the impoverished. They support the expansion of military power even through violence as long as it "ultimately" leads to a better world (their vision, not mine).
In short, they're not just deluded versions of us. They are, in fact, the enemy. The party has a deep class problem right now, not a gendered one. It reminds me of where the Greens foundered on the rocks 15-20 years ago. Same issue. Same cleavage.