Hillary's hypocrisy: "Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion"

[AZ Progressive]

Back in her intro campaign ad (at 1:45), she said:



Riighhhttt....

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillarys-financial-armada-233033648.html

A billionaire hedge fund kingpin, co-owner of the Milwaukee Bucs and avid high-stakes poker player (for stakes as much as $20,000 a hand) Lasry is among Clinton’s most steadfast Wall Street backers, with close personal ties to her family. He has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation, hired Chelsea Clinton at his Avenue Capital hedge fund, invested (along with Blankfein) in son-in-law Mezvinsky’s fund and made his corporate jet available to Clinton while she was senator. When Clinton launched her campaign last year, Lasry threw one of the initial fundraisers, sending out an email saying he would “love to try to raise 270” — as in $270,000.

Goldman’s executives and employees have contributed $750,000 to Clinton’s political campaigns, including $100,616 to this year’s run. The firm itself has donated at least $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation and paid $1.2 million to Bill Clinton for speeches dating back to 2001. Blankfein, who has described himself as a friend of Hillary Clinton, has lent a helping financial hand to the Clinton family: He (along with two other former Goldman executives) is among the investors in Eaglevale Partners, the hedge fund founded in 2011 by Marc Mezvinsky, husband of Chelsea Clinton, and the former secretary’s son in law.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175993/tomgram%3A_nomi_prins,_hillary,_bill,_and_the_big_six_banks/

When Hillary Clinton video-announced her bid for the Oval Office, she claimed she wanted to be a “champion” for the American people. Since then, she has attempted to recast herself as a populist and distance herself from some of the policies of her husband. But Bill Clinton did not become president without sharing the friendships, associations, and ideologies of the elite banking sect, nor will Hillary Clinton. Such relationships run too deep and are too longstanding.

Whatever her populist pitch may be in the 2016 campaign -- and she will have one -- note that, in all these years, Hillary Clinton has not publicly condemned Wall Street or any individual Wall Street leader. Though she may, in the heat of that campaign, raise the bad-apples or bad-situation explanation for Wall Street’s role in the financial crisis of 2007-2008, rest assured that she will not point fingers at her friends. She will not chastise the people that pay her hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop to speak or the ones that have long shared the social circles in which she and her husband move. She is an undeniable component of the Clinton political-financial legacy that came to national fruition more than 23 years ago, which is why looking back at the history of the first Clinton presidency is likely to tell you so much about the shape and character of the possible second one.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/hillary-clinton-wall-street-bailout?CMP=twt_gu

I owe almost my entire Wall Street career to the Clintons. I am not alone; most bankers owe their careers, and their wealth, to them. Over the last 25 years they – with the Clintons it is never just Bill or Hillary – implemented policies that placed Wall Street at the center of the Democratic economic agenda, turning it from a party against Wall Street to a party of Wall Street.

[Art_from_Ark]

1. She blew her chance to be MY champion

when she defended Arkansas utility companies against ACORN's citizen initiative to reduce residential electricity rates in Little Rock back in the '70s when inflation was a big problem for a lot of us. Even though I didn't live in Little Rock, the initiative would probably have spread statewide if it had not been defeated in court when Hillary persuaded an idiot judge that giving residential ratepayers a break on their electric bills amounted to an "unconstitutional confiscation of property"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128079222

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. Champion of the 99%.....LOL!

[peacebird]

3. To be fair, she considers her peers in the 1% to be the "everyday Americans" - not us peasants

[CorporatistNation]

6. AGREED! SHE IS QUEEN OF THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%...

No doubt about it!

[bigwillq]

4. I don't want her to be

I just want her to go away lol

[Donkees]

5. "Bernie Sanders: The Political Foresight Champion"

"Bernie Sanders is surging in the boxing match known as the Democratic primary— landing political jabs and uppercuts. The other participant in the ring, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is taking the blows and countering with establishment haymakers. Remember, Hillary has done it all: she was first lady, a United States senator, ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008, and most recently, was handpicked by Barack Obama to serve as the secretary of state. And moreover, Hillary’s political positions aren’t that far off from what Bernie is propagating. However, there is one key difference: Bernie’s political foresight makes Nostradamus look like a Medieval street prophet.

How so? Bernie has the upper hand on Hillary with regard to a few hot button issues: the War in Iraq, the financial crisis and pro-LGBT positions. Let’s start with the War in Iraq, a conflict that Bernie opposed from the outset.

“I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country?”

Bernie didn’t vote to authorize the Bush Administration to conduct operations in Iraq. Instead of pandering to the financial elite by supporting false pretexts for war, conjured up by Saruman Cheney (an incredibly nerdy LOTR reference, I know), Bernie had the mental wherewithal to comprehend the difficulties of controlling a post-invasion Iraq, whereby he predicted the creation of a power vacuum that would foster an environment of extremism.

Years later, Iraq has become a breeding ground for radical jihadists seeking to construct a Muslim caliphate. Thanks to George “Dumbya” Bush, and his pro-defense inner circle, the Middle East has reached a dangerous crossroads, one between moderate Muslims, and those who seek to distort the Koran to fit their morally backwards religious objectives, such as, oh, you know, banning the breeding of pigeons, as they fly over head and expose their genitals to unsuspecting civilians. Apparently, Middle Eastern pigeons are as well-endowed as Ron Jeremy. Either that or breeders supplement their diets with Cialis….

But back to my point: Bernie’s astute argument also sheds light on America’s future role in post-invasion Iraq—the underlying inferences being: 1) how long will the conflict last, 2) the level of engagement required, and 3) the role to which the U.S. will play in dictating domestic Iraqi affairs. Factors the Bush Administration, Republicans and duped Democrats refused or naively disregarded. Bernie’s cautious calculations and tamed foreign policy objectives demonstrate his lucid political foresight.

The democratic socialist, from the great state of Ben and Jerry’s, also predicted the 2008 Financial Crisis in a Congressional hearing on financial bailouts, ten years before the financial collapse. In sum, Bernie Sanders calls out trickle-down economics, wealth inequality, hedging, Federal Reserve bailouts and economic cronyism, and has hinted at these policies culminating in an unsustainable system that would contribute to financial turmoil. Bear in mind, the economy at the tail-end of the previous century was booming, so Bernie’s statement may have fallen upon deaf ears. Nonetheless, Bernie’s refusal to mollycoddle the financial elite was a political standpoint that has become mainstream ever since the financial collapse. And while one can’t tie Hillary to these policies—as she was the first lady at the time—her husband, with the benefit of hindsight, was perhaps a bit too comfortable with the now faded icon, Alan Greenspan, who created an economic paradigm that justified massive wealth accumulation by financial giants, shady derivatives schemes and white collar gambling on Wall Street. The untouchable Greenspan Ayn Randian unfettered capitalism dream that was fated once again to lead to economic Armageddon. Once again, Bernie’s political foresight brings credibility to his consistent moral convictions


Incidentally, Bernie, in 1979, wrote about the potential issues associated with the privatization of television networks. One excerpt that stands out is his reference to the TV industry’s objective—due to it being mostly owned by private corporations—of intentionally stupefying American television viewers in order to drive advertising profits. Essentially, according to Bernie, television content that lacked intellectual subject matter would become commonplace: a prediction that has panned out. I mean, have you watched Fox News lately? Viewers of this jingoistic propaganda machine are less informed than individuals who don’t watch news at all. Bernie’s prognosticating is surely eerie, especially when one considers that 90 percent of the American media is owned by six corporations.

Even before the Edward Snowden revelations, Bernie foresaw the ever-encroaching nature of the Patriot Act on the 4th Amendment. After the 9/11 attacks, in an environment rife with insecurity and paranoia, Sanders understood the dangers of granting the federal government Orwellian-esque police powers. That’s why he voted against the bill in 2001. In times of crisis, citizens—especially following events that expose a nation’s security apparatus—are more willing to concede their freedom in exchange for protection. While the Patriot Act may have been well intentioned, the Bush administration ended up employing extra-judicious tactics in implementing it, such as the warrantless wiretapping of American phones. But Bernie highlighted the potential for government overreach and issues with the lack of oversight of government intelligence agencies, and therefore knew that this wasn’t necessarily the best approach. He stuck to this conviction when he voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in both 2006 and 2011. In contrast, Clinton voted to implement the Patriot Act in 2001 and for reauthorization in 2006; but, to her credit, she voted against extending the wiretapping provision in 2005. There’s no doubt that Sanders’s stances on government surveillance exemplifies his adherence to the liberty-centric tenets of progressivism.

In my opinion, Bernie’s unwavering backing of LGBT rights draws another distinction between the two Democratic frontrunners. Remember, Hillary Clinton, in the 2008 Democratic Primary, ran on an anti-gay marriage platform, a possible consequence of public sentiment regarding same-sex marriage not hovering at, or over 50 percent — a position made out of political convenience, rather than doing what’s right. My criticism isn’t only confined to Hillary Clinton: Barack Obama played the same “my opinion evolved” card when he announced his support for same-sex marriage, acting as if they had never favored it in the first place. And while a presidential candidate’s opinions typically reflect party preferences, Democrats, as a coalition, have supported same-sex marriage by a majority since 2006—so why the wait?

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders was in favor of same-sex marriage when it was largely unpopular: he voted against numerous anti-gay marriage measures and received a 100 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign—he never had to “evolve” his opinion. Bernie unquestionably recognized marriage as a right that should be granted to all American citizens, regardless of sexual orientation. Public opinion is peripheral to Bernie’s support of human rights: Understanding the immorality of legally suppressive measures, even if they are supported by a majority, is key to becoming a morally upstanding leader. Bernie’s acceptance of same-sex marriage is, to some degree, analogous to Civil Rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, as they were able to differentiate between just and unjust laws regardless of restrictive social mores.

Political foresight is a skill limited to a few intuitive politicians—Bernie being one of them. The Bernie surge, whether or not it dethrones Clinton, forces Clinton to accept more left-leaning positions, especially in regards to foreign policy, financial markets and civil rights. Moreover, Clinton is substantially benefiting from a strong primary challenge as it’s preparing her for the grueling and hyper-scrutinized general election. Thankfully, the Democratic nominee will be running against circus clowns, who tend to have the mental capacity of domestic turkeys—an animal known to get frightened and, in a state of panic, continuously run into a corner until a turkey mountain is created, which suffocates those stuck on the bottom.

In the end, Bernie’s heightened political foresight and adherence to moral convictions can set the standard for what Americans expect from their elected leaders: an ability to think critically, and a strong, stable, moral character."

http://thebernreport.com/bernard-bernie-sanders-the-political-foresight-champion/

[CorporatistNation]

7. YHUGGGGEEEEE! SPREAD THIS EVERYWHERE... ESPECIALLY TO THE HILLBOTS!

Thank you!

[PonyUp]

8. Hillbots don't care. She could eat a kitten on TV and they would cheer. n/t

[AZ Progressive]

9. So Hillary is friends with the leaders of one of the big banks that had to be bailed out in 2008...

Why wouldn't Hillary bail them out again if needed if she became president?