Home | About | Donate

Some Questions for Hillary Clinton Supporters


Some Questions for Hillary Clinton Supporters

John Atcheson

1.) Why is Wall Street Giving her Money?

Since Sanders made it an issue, Ms. Clinton has repeatedly said she would be tough on Wall Street and the big banks. If that’s the case, why have they given her so much money?

Are we to believe these savvy, bottom line types aren’t looking for a return on their investment?


Hillary "I did not have $ex with that bank" Clinton 2016!
Yeah, right..


8.) There is a tidal wave of rejection of the 1%'s class privilege growing in this country - right here, right now. It's the political revolution that Bernie is talking about. Do you really want to miss it?


Why don't we (the left) get it yet. Break from the D's and form a new party. Period.


I don't get this stuff about saying votes in the South are less important than votes in other parts of the country. The people in the South are voting for who they want the Democratic nominee to be. Sure the people in Alabama know Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is not going to win the electoral college votes in their state, but that isn't the point, being Democrats they want a say in who the Democratic nominee will be so their candidate does get electoral college votes in states like New York and Massachusetts. The votes of the Democratic voters in the South matter as much as those everywhere else in selecting the nominee of the party. It doesn't matter where the votes came from, Hillary Clinton is leading Bernie Sanders by 2.4 million votes. To win the argument on popular votes Sanders needs to take the lead in popular votes.


What about her highly touted phalanx of advisers, experts, and sycophants? What genius thought it a good idea to make a public case out of Bernie's income tax. Bernie releases forms listing income of $205,000, less than Hillary makes giving one speech at her standard honorarium of $225,000 per. Sure is nice having Robby Mook, the wunderkind from Princeton, running her campaign, concocting moves such as this--keep it up!

Today team Hillary is spreading the false notion that Bernie went to Rome instead of campaigning because he is conceding the New York Primary, and maybe the election. This fits in with a new "progressive" genre hitting the "internets." It is characterized by "If,When," with the emphasis on the "when." If Bernie withdraws, or when Bernie withdraws. There are plently of examples, many published here on CD. The rather strange timing of Nader's piece on John Kasich is a recent example. Almost all of Grieder and Kuttner are "if, when." So Bernie's fight is not only with Hillary's folks, but with many of the tired titans of the Liberal Establishment. William Rivers Pitt had a speculative piece on Hillary v Tump, Hillary v Cruz. And so it goes.


1.) Why is Wall Street Giving her Money?
HRC: So I can afford $600 haircuts, John.

2.) Why is she so unwilling to share what she said to the big banks in her multi-million dollar talks?
HRC: Why would I give away for free something worth $225,000?

3.) Why is she on record championing the repeal of Glass-Stegall, among other regulations?
HRC: Regulation bad. Neoliberalism good.

4.) If she understands how big a mistake her Iraq vote was, why does she continue to advocate regime change without examining what happens the next day?
HRC: I'm a follower of Ram Dass, John, I live in the moment.

5.) Can you really be “Ready on Day One” if you got most things wrong and haven’t learned from it?
HRC: You learn from your mistakes, John, and that makes me the smartest person in the world.

6.) Do you want to risk having a Republican win the Presidency?
HRC: Because, dummy, it's better for a Democrat to enact neoliberal policies than a Republican.


Wicklund: If Slickery is s/elected, things will change: things will get incrementally WORSE...until people who chose to vote for "incrementalism" will pull their heads out of the sand, look around, see everything is gone: free press, civil liberties, such as privacy, decent salaries, environmental health/wildlife species, etc., and naiively ask "what the hell happened?"...and it will be TOO LATE.
I have read all these corporations are giving to Slickery because they expect to do "business" with her
You mean it's NOT because they care and believe in her "promises" to make this nation a more inclusive, prosperous and fossil fuel free land for all? What a surprise!


I honestly think that people voting for the Democratic establishment candidate are hybrids - socially liberal and financially conservative. They are comfortable enough that they don't want to take the chance of losing any of their precious money in taxes. I also think that most of these people don't realize that they won't be affected all that much by the proposals that Bernie is making (e.g., income > $500,000) - they just don't have the courage to do the right thing.



And yet.... I can't see this well written piece dissuading the Hilbots one little bit. They are stuck in their world of Hillary accolades mixed with a hefty dose of cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation. One thing that really bothers me is if we get deeper into this campaign and the momentum for Sanders continues to build, and it looks like it is increasingly likely that Clinton cannot win against Trump or Cruz and Sanders can, will HRC leave the race and transfer her support to Sanders for the good of the country? Then I ask myself the question - when have either of the Clintons ever made a personal sacrifice for the betterment of this country? It is quite apparent that we could end up with a President Trump or Cruz or some other right-wing nutjob because of the scenario I just described.
I am using what seems like an appropriate car analogy to the political situation in the U.S. With Rethugs in power we are speeding off a cliff at 60 mph. With corporate Democrats or DINOs in charge we are only speeding off that cliff at 40 mph. If HRC fails against the Rethugs in November then they will just accelerate to 80 mph. Noam Chomsky said recently that he has never seen so many "lunatics" in American politics. I think of them as the "American Taliban" and they will not stop until we are lying at the base of that cliff in a smoking ruin. However, to them, all of the Christians will then be in Heaven hanging around with Jeebus sitting on his great throne. The rest of us will, of course, be in Hell.


Nobody's saying that. He's saying that in the general, the South hasn't gone Dem for a loooong time.


Well done, Mr. Atcheson. Thanks.


Today G. Clooney said that he is having the fundraiser for Clinton to help the Democrats take over Congress. Why not have one for that purpose without giving the money to Clinton, who would sink the Democrats?


there's two arguments going on. the first is the every vote counts the same in primary. That's true, which is the argument you're making (I've made it myself). The second, though, is about her electability, which she chose to make an issue of, and that's where this matters. If the bulk of your support is in losing states, then youre not as 'viable' as you're making yourself out to be. That's what Atcheson is addressing.


I was volunteer phone banking for Bernie today in NY, and one of the people I talked to said she got a call from a paid Planned Parenthood caller, suggesting she vote for Clinton to protect reproductive rights. Apparently they broke a 100 year drought and backed a candidate: Clinton. What a disgrace, wrote them a letter, telling them I would no longer support them.


Agree, and I would add the only way we progressives can get what we want is to put our foot down, and have solidarity. Most liberals are happy with Bernie, but still vote Clinton. So, if Clinton is the candidate, progressives should not vote for her no matter what, and next time, we will get the candidate we want, after the nation and world hopefully survives the next 4 years of hell.


Let's impeach her now so she doesn't cost us all that time and money after she cheats her way into the WH.


She has certainly made M-A-N-Y mistakes, but I have to say that from my vantage point she really doesn't seem any smarter at all, in fact, I am growing more concerned by the day that she's getting dangerously close to the age Reagan was when his Alzheimer's started to show.


Debbie Wasserman Schultz, if you lose your job in the House, will Bernie still need to kick you out when he becomes President, or will you lose your position as head of the DNC automatically?