Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

UglyGreed

(7,661 posts)
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:47 AM Feb 2016

The 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 women’s rights speech in Beijing in 1995 made her a household name. But today, Hillary’s 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 women’s issues. Feminism now embraces the idea of intersectionality—that women experience layers of oppression based on factors like race, class, sexuality, whether they are cis or trans gender, ethnicity, etc. Nevertheless, she’s won the endorsement of several major women’s groups including Planned Parenthood, EMILY’s List, and NARAL Pro-Choice America over her rival and intersectional feminist, Bernie Sanders (who has a 100% record from NARAL).

Women’s 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 Clinton’s past to warrant this praise.

Hillary’s Record on Civil Rights

As a teenager, Hillary Clinton cut her teeth campaigning for Barry Goldwater, one of the originators of the GOP’s infamous Southern Strategy who many believed was a segregationist. Though our teenage convictions aren’t 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

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Clinton Machine: Hillary's Endorsements are Based on Influence Peddling, Not Her Record (Original Post) UglyGreed Feb 2016 OP
Her endorsements are not helping her Arazi Feb 2016 #1
an endorsement is an endorsement. 6chars Feb 2016 #2
I've called bias when someone in Clinton's camp writes an article Jarqui Feb 2016 #3
I myself would not compare UglyGreed Feb 2016 #6
I was stuck. Felt I should say something about bias Jarqui Feb 2016 #7
Sorry I missed UglyGreed Feb 2016 #8
I've been saying this forever. JRLeft Feb 2016 #4
In a Year of Anit-Establishment jham123 Feb 2016 #5

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
1. Her endorsements are not helping her
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:05 PM
Feb 2016

in fact, I agree with this article - they may even be hurting her as people smell the stink of influence peddling.

Good article

Jarqui

(10,119 posts)
3. I've called bias when someone in Clinton's camp writes an article
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:17 PM
Feb 2016

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)
6. I myself would not compare
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:50 PM
Feb 2016

Bragman to Correct the Record which has been able to work with the campaign even though it is a superPAC.

Jarqui

(10,119 posts)
7. I was stuck. Felt I should say something about bias
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:58 PM
Feb 2016

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."

jham123

(278 posts)
5. In a Year of Anit-Establishment
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:19 PM
Feb 2016

Her lack of awareness is astonishing

Go ahead Hillary, trot out the entire establishment in single file for us all to view

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Clinton Machine: Hill...