2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Clinton Machine: Hillary's Endorsements are Based on Influence Peddling, Not Her Record
Hillary Clinton became a canonized figure in feminist and American history for redefining the role of the First Lady in American politics. Her womens rights speech in Beijing in 1995 made her a household name. But today, Hillarys brand of feminism is limited. It is what some have dubbed white feminism because it ignores racial and economic justice. As our society has advanced, so too has our understanding of womens issues. Feminism now embraces the idea of intersectionalitythat women experience layers of oppression based on factors like race, class, sexuality, whether they are cis or trans gender, ethnicity, etc. Nevertheless, shes won the endorsement of several major womens groups including Planned Parenthood, EMILYs List, and NARAL Pro-Choice America over her rival and intersectional feminist, Bernie Sanders (who has a 100% record from NARAL).
Womens groups endorsing Clinton are at least more understandable than her most recent endorsement from the Congressional Black Caucus CBCPAC (without the approval of the CBC membership). New York Representative Hakeem Jeffries even spoke out on her behalf, calling her a true friend to the African American community for the last 40 years. There is very little in Hillary Clintons past to warrant this praise.
Hillarys Record on Civil Rights
As a teenager, Hillary Clinton cut her teeth campaigning for Barry Goldwater, one of the originators of the GOPs infamous Southern Strategy who many believed was a segregationist. Though our teenage convictions arent necessarily determinative of who we become, this grounding offers insight into why Hillary Clinton rose to national prominence when she did.
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/the-clinton-machine-hillarys-endorsements-are-base.html
Arazi
(6,829 posts)in fact, I agree with this article - they may even be hurting her as people smell the stink of influence peddling.
Good article
6chars
(3,967 posts)a superdelegate is a superdelegate.
a victory is a victory
Jarqui
(10,119 posts)Walker Bragman likes Bernie and has also written at the Huffington Post so in fairness, I've got to call out a bias warning. Is he on the Sanders campaign payroll? I sincerely doubt it so there is a difference from the Correct the Record pieces.
Between 2016 super pacs and 2015 year's worth of lobbyists (figures from opensecrets), I recently posted that they're spending $5 billion already. That's a lot of money. Rich people usually don't get rich giving away their money for nothing.
Yes, there is philanthropy. A number of times, it's genuine. Sometimes, it's a beneficiary of an estate. But often it results in a wing of a hospital named after them or big write in the paper, etc. And that goes right back into the Annual Report and corporate literature to pump their image - it's good marketing or good for rehabilitating a bad image.
Some of the contributions in that $5 billion are sincere - they just want what they perceive as a good candidate in the government. But $5 billion dollars is a little too much to expect it's all for that and no influence peddling is going on. The lobbyist money certainly isn't for a candidate.
So at least part of his article and part of his history of Hillary is correct.
None of that nonsense is going on with Bernie. He won't let lobbyists in his office.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Bragman to Correct the Record which has been able to work with the campaign even though it is a superPAC.
Jarqui
(10,119 posts)but I didn't want it be construed like a Clinton PAC. I said
"so there is a difference from the Correct the Record pieces."
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)that
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)jham123
(278 posts)Her lack of awareness is astonishing
Go ahead Hillary, trot out the entire establishment in single file for us all to view