Hillary Clinton: Regulate Wall Street and the Terrorists Win

[nashville_brook]

http://thefloridasqueeze.com/2015/11/15/hillary-clinton-regulate-wall-street-and-the-terrorists-win/

HILLARY CLINTON: REGULATE WALL STREET AND THE TERRORISTS WIN




Last night Hillary Clinton went “full Giuliani” when she compared criticism of her Wall Street ties to letting the terrorists win. For a candidate who is superb debate performer, the creepiest thing about last night is that this message wasn’t deployed as the result of a fumble. She said exactly what she meant to say.

It all began when Clinton was asked about how her ties to Wall Street would influence her and she basically said, ‘not one bit,” to which Sanders responded, “let’s not be naive about it.” Sanders continued, “Why, over her political career has Wall Street been a major — the major campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton? You know, maybe they’re dumb and they don’t know what they’re going to get, but I don’t think so.”

Sanders was pointing out what every voter in America knows. Big donors, giving millions to her super PACs, are keenly aware of what that money buys. If billionaires, hedge fund managers and Wall Street bankers gave money away just because it felt good, we’d have fully-funded public infrastructure, schools and arts. We might even have cured cancer, and colonized Saturn by now.

All that money Wall Street throws at Hillary Clinton has a purpose behind it. Some is intended to “modernize Social Security.” Some is intended to “keep regulation in check.” You can bet that there’s a pile specially designated to maintain the “carried interest deduction.” Lobbyists know exactly what their dollars buy. Checks are written. Meetings are attended. Laws are passed.

Before playing the 9/11 card, Clinton briefly tried to play the sexism card. Here is where Sanders differentiates himself from Clinton on Wall Street and campaign finance: “Once again, I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors, 750,000 of them, 30 bucks a piece. That’s who I’m indebted to.”

Clinton initially responds to criticism of her Wall Street campaign contributions as being sexist, saying, “Wait a minute, he has basically used his answer to impugn my integrity. Let’s be frank here…You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small. And I’m very proud that for the first time a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent.”

After that she quickly pivoted to 9/11. Why the sudden turn away from her usual charges of sexism? I’m glad she’s (maybe) giving that a rest for while. When Hillary Clinton accuses Bernie Sanders of sexism for using the phrase “we need to stop shouting at each other about guns,” there’s no escaping the fact that this cheapens the experience of every woman who actually has been silenced because of “tone complaints.” No one wants their struggle exploited for a candidate’s political gain.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like her pivot was because she saw the light on being a better feminist. She pivoted, I believe, because the campaign has more powerful talking point: In the wake of the Paris attacks, the new talking point is intended is to cloak Wall Street in our fear of terrorism.

Here’s the moment of the full reveal of the new talking point in the debate:

Clinton: “I represented New York on 9/11. I spent a whole lot of time helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”It’s fine to say what you’re going to say (to Sanders) — I look at reinstating Glass-Steagall,” and “I looked very carefully at your proposal; re-instating Glass-Steagall [provisions of the Banking Act of 1933, abolished by Bill Clinton] is a part of what very well could help, but it is nowhere near enough. My proposal is tougher, more effective, and more comprehensive because I go after all of Wall Street, not just the big banks.”

Regulate Wall Street and the terrorists win. It’s classic Clintonian triangulation. With a little luck, this message could ‘take Wall Street off the table’ for the rest of the campaign.

It’s such nonsense I can hardly believe it wasn’t Rudy Giuliani or Donald Rumsfeld spouting this stuff. Must we even remind folks that Wall Street collapsed in 2008 because of their of their own fraud? Their downfall had nothing to do with terrorism, back on 9/11, or today in the wake of the Paris attacks. This is the kind of rebuttal I imagine needing to deploy against George W. Bush.

If there was any question about her intention to make the connection between Wall Street and rising jingoistic antipathies, an incredulous Twitter question was chosen by CBS to give Clinton a second bite at the apple. Instead of backing-off her outlandish, mis-portrayal of the 9/11 attacks, Clinton doubled-down repeating her original statement almost word-for-word.

CORDES: And Secretary Clinton, one of the tweets we saw said this, “I’ve never seen a candidate invoke 9/11 to justify millions of Wall Street donations until now.” The idea being, yes, you were a champion of the community after 9/11, but what does that have to do with taking big donations?

CLINTON: Well, I’m sorry that whoever tweeted that had that impression because I worked closely with New Yorkers after 9/11 for my entire first term to rebuild. So, yes, I did know people. I’ve had a lot of folks give me donations from all kinds of backgrounds say, I don’t agree with you on everything, but I like what you do. I like how you stand up. I’m going to support you, and I think that is absolutely appropriate.

It couldn’t be clearer that she prepared this statement to push back on her coziness to Wall Street interests, specifically with the Paris attacks in mind. Of all the moments to exploit 9/11, she did so while they are still wiping the blood off the streets in Paris. Why would anyone think it’s okay to stoke these fears, to these ends, at this time?

I’ve gone back and forth on my support for a new Clinton Presidency. There was a reason I went for Obama in 2008, and it was largely because of Hillary’s ugly campaign behavior. In this cycle I have my favorite candidate, but I would like to say we’ve got a good team no matter who wins.

After last night, I’m afraid I can no longer make that claim. There’s no excuse for exploiting terrorism for political gain, especially not in service of protecting the Wall Street bankers who blew up the world’s economy. There’s real people who died in the attacks on 9/11 and in the Paris attacks. Some are still fighting for their lives with bullets in their bodies. Now is not the time to use our mourning and disgust as a means to advance a political agenda that protects Wall Street fraudsters. All the while, you’re trying to tell us that their money doesn’t buy them anything. This is what it buys them: your utter submission.

There’s “winning ugly,” and then there’s becoming so ugly that you deserve to lose. This might be one of those times. At least there's other good Democrats in the race should her primary implode.

[misterhighwasted]

1. Another anti-Hillary pro-bernie hit piece.

The writer at the link can't diss the Dem Party enough.
Welcome to Democratic Underground.

[DirkGently]

3. It's a local Dem website, actually.

The writer at the link is the OP -- a DUer with 20,000 quality posts here.

Nice thoughtful analysis though.

[misterhighwasted]

4. 20,000 posts from 2004.

My post remains as originally stated.
20,000 posts in 2004 doesn't change my questioning of the piece at the link.
Its an opinion hit piece as stated.

[DirkGently]

9. That's "since" 2004, silly. And it remains a Dem website

and a Dem writer. Good lord, if you're going to try to use someone's profile to bash them, you should at least try to understand how post counts work, don't you think?

As for "hit piece," deflecting on Iraq and Wall Street are among the real substantive issues that Dems have with Clinton.

Republicans love war and Wall Street. These are the last things any Republican or conservative would take issue with.

So again, pretty silly to try to imply the OP or the website are somehow on the other team.

[misterhighwasted]

17. LoL.. mmmhmm. Its a Clinton hit piece. One sided view.

Regardless of whomever wrote it & how many posts they have.
Its intent & purpose is political hit piece, anti-Clinton.
That's all it is.
Nothing the RW hasn't been doing for 25 yrs, however.
Just more of the same. The farther HRC moves ahead of the other candidates, the louder the others left in the distance must shout to be heard. I understand their method to the madness, its silly.

Enjoy your day

[DirkGently]

20. Do you have a substantive response to the post?

We've established neither the writer nor the message are from the other side, so it really doesn't work to dismiss it out of hand.

[roguevalley]

40. amazing how even when she speaks her slag

the person who reports it is a hater and a hit piece con writer. I think if she said out loud that she was a republican and it was shown on video they would say the same things. I don't understand how direct quotes don't compute to some.

[DirkGently]

70. I've tried to explain this to conservatives (Dem and otherwise) before

... there is an odd misunderstanding about what kind of opinions are trustworthy or in good faith. Republicans, in particular, seem to think that arguing from a selfish pecuniary interest is fine and upstanding, but arguing from principle is suspect.

Example: Obama, I think, appointed someone to a health-related position in the federal government. Republicans screamed that there was a "conflict of interest" because the person was associated with anti-smoking groups.

Meanwhile, the oil company veterans appointed to the EPA are always fine of course.

The idea seems to be that coming from a position of interest in the common good or general principle is suspect and sinister, while shilling for whoever is paying you is exactly the way things are supposed to work.

[klook]

103. Great observation.

It's so simple and obvious, you shouldn't even need to explain the phenomenon. But you've laid out one of the key examples of Republican cognitive dissonance, and very succinctly.

[Enthusiast]

112. +!! It is an interesting phenomenon, one worthy of the Twilight Zone.

[PatrynXX]

49. yeah right she is the RW

RW says she won the debate last night. I don't hear anyone else sane saying that. X_X

[nashville_brook]

71. actually, it's quite different. i wish clinton could deliver something of value for the party

these actions show that's not the case.

[nashville_brook]

86. sez the poster with 10 years LESS on this board than i, and 4 hidden posts :)

blahahahaahahaaaha!

enjoy YOUR day.

[grasswire]

154. to say nothing of being self described as high and wasted. nt

[artislife]

12. As if it were the only one.

I think the points discussed are valid, thus I do not consider it a "hit" piece.

[ThePhilosopher04]

18. Truth hurts

[left on green only]

62. Agreed!

Or to put it even more succinctly: The truth never hurts unless it aught to.

[floriduck]

38. Even Stephanie Cutter,

a vowed Clinton supporter, said going down the 9/11 path was a real mistake for Clinton. See that was one of those anger moments for Hill. She doesn't hide it well and she'll keep that in her craw until she gets her payback. Just watch and see.

[840high]

46. And your response is?

[Unknown Beatle]

47. Why is the truth about Hillary always

a hit piece or a smear? Putting lipstick on a pig is still a pig. Please don't try to conflate this with anything but what it is, a saying signifying that no matter how you try to dress it up, the truth always wins out.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

55. Take to to the next level: Claim dissing the banks is against the party too.

[rhett o rick]

87. Wrong. It's standing up to the big money who side you apparently like. It's time to throw

out the politicians that are puppets for Goldman-Sachs.

Take a chance and stand with the People and not Goldman-Sachs.

[raindaddy]

134. As if having a candidate that is against regulating and breaking up fraudulent banks..

that have become so big they control congress and can take down our economy isn't already a dis on the party????

[AlbertCat]

139. Another anti-Hillary pro-bernie hit piece.

They are easy to do. There's plenty to work with.

[MisterP]

2. they do always treat any dissent as dangerous radicalism

back in 2006 they were panicking about the "purity purges" and warning us about Pol Pot as much as the "spoiler effect"

I remember when DU condemned Kerry for praising Bush's handling of Iraq and one of the Loyalist hall monitors said "oh, so you want him to hoot and rant and take a dump on the Senate podium?" they literally compared not going out of one's way to praise the Iraq War was having a screaming fit and smearing excrement in the halls of Congress

it's the same attitude as Tom Perkins' "Kristallnacht" moan--the biggest mouth wins

[nashville_brook]

19. i remember the first time in high school that students assembled for a "pep rally"

i thought, this is cool. we're out of class -- nothing wrong with that. we get to go to the gym (that's always different, at least). they seem to want us to yell and scream. okay, whatever. at least we're not in class.

and then all of a sudden it felt really creepy. what were we yelling for? i wasn't sure. it was a sport of some kind. emotions were high, and we were all expected to participate in the ritual and get our emotions all running high too. the whole scheme seemed bogus to me.

that's what these patriotic responses are starting to feel like -- either get emotionally wound up, as if this is some cheap high school pep rally, or move on. i can't do it. i have to look it this rationally. it's too real. it's too important.

[MisterP]

28. many, many are uncomfortable with the whole "chanting body wall" approach

a wild guess is that most Clinton supporters organized to support "the Democratic candidate" before Sanders ran, or without knowing he was running, or that he'd just provide a Bill Bradley-style sideshow; so it's not a primary, it's a mere runup to the general--hence the very difficulty of many at grappling with the bare fact that Sanders is running a primary opposition

so as with the typical old style of campaigning they're fired up and bused in--but of course they quickly moving past this: whenever there's a flap with her crew there's always this repeated theme of high group identity--the footmen dragging a rope to drag the media forward, the cops called on BLM amidst chanting, even apparently the water bottles handed out only to those with Clinton t-shirts

any contradiction is a sign of either infiltration or betrayal and must be punished with human walls and the usual chants lest they be threatened (hence all the emphasis on white and male Sanders supporters and twice-told tales of supposed threats by them, which have vanished posthaste: they have enemies, not opponents)

unfortunately meatspace is not a DU Group: they can't just expel anyone from reality

[senz]

45. It's an authoritarian approach.

Its reductio ad absurdum would be North Korea -- an absolute ruler, heavily enforced fake enthusiasm in crowd behavior, total conformity mandated.

Many gradations in between, of course, but if she obtains the presidency civil liberties will not be as welcome as they are now.

[MisterP]

52. the point is to empty out politics: you don't support a candidate for their policies, you support

a policy because your candidate does--that's what made a lot of people smell something with Obama's great promises in 2008 (who were told to STFU and seek forgiveness): he was able to delay any resistance within the party to after 2012, and had a Pub passed his policies we all would've been out in the streets (but instead he got full benefit of the doubt to entrench the status quo)

for the other party, Your Asshole Uncle isn't really angry about what Fox tells him to be--since he's equally angry when he hears the opposite thing the next evening: the goal is to unmoor emotion from anything other than verbiage

[truedelphi]

69. great post, especially find your last sentence interesting. n/t

[MisterP]

73. hey, it's how any good cult works: they have to run off cliches rather than reality, after all

[nashville_brook]

82. mindblown. that is how you'd hollow out politics, isn't it?

cult of personality.

[DirkGently]

133. +++ I think of this dynamic

... which you have articulated beautifully, as "tribalism." Follow the group or the leader at all costs. Sublimate critical thinking. Reduce politics and policy to the level of cheering on a sports team.

I was creeped out at "pep rallies" too. I remember the first one well. A strange indoctrination to group-think and the mob mentality.

It's got to be tied to some primitive impulse to fight the hordes at the city gates or something.

Something ancient buried in those big conservative amygdalas Republicans have.

[nashville_brook]

157. we should just be highly suspicious of anyone who wants us to hotwire the amygdala :)

[dflprincess]

59. There was a teacher in my high school who got himself into all sorts of trouble

when he referred to pep rallies as "compulsory attendance Hitler Youth rallies".

But I look back on them and - damn, they pretty much were.

[nashville_brook]

85. after the first one i asked if i could be excused to go to the library

which, thankfully was a request one of my few requests in high school that got accepted.

[AlbertCat]

142. if i could be excused to go to the library

You're lucky.

At my live-in prep school, the pep rally against our "arch-enemy" school (since like 1920 or something) featured lit torches, an huge bonfire and burning the other coach in effigy. As "New Boys" (freshmen), we were required to make 3 torches for the event. I took the supplies they gave me for this and threw them in a cow pasture. After the 1st one of these outrageous rituals (they did (do?) them every year) I never went to one again. But I had to HIDE in the woods or a barn or something. They came to your room looking for you. So SCARY....over some stupid football game.


I find it a little telling that we seem to hear more about Sanders' supporters from Hillary folks than we do about Sanders himself.

[Plucketeer]

136. Lemmings!

That's what comes to mind with the Hilllary fixation. That and the question as to WHY folks vote against their own, best interests.

LOL.... Now that I think about it, it's like the "Trump-ets" of the other side: Don't obfuscate the issues with FACTS! He's gonna make us GREAT again!

[Rose Siding]

5. Maybe I should cut and paste funny looking pictures of Senator Sanders

Nah, that'd just be a low class, back-side-out-to-the-world-kind of thing.

[senz]

32. Ah. That's what I thought. It's the unflattering photo of HRC that gets y'all.

We protest her venality and lack of humanity? Y'all laugh and could care less.

But an unflattering photo? Oh no, that's hitting below the belt!

[SammyWinstonJack]

94. Hehe.

[nashville_brook]

110. i actually picked it b/c i liked her expression and thought she looked much younger and more

vibrant than most photos i've seen recently. it's a "reaction" photo, sure. but i don't see it as unflattering. believe me, there's plenty of choices if you wanted to pair up a photo to make her look tired, sad, old, haggard, mean — add your own unflattering adjective — but it's beneath me to go there. i can disagree with my subject, find and interesting "reaction" shot, and not have to rely on making the subject look utterly horrible.

unless they're a republican.

i absolutely love this photo, by the way. i love that it's graphic. i love the palette. the tilt of the camera. it's a winner.

[AlbertCat]

144. It sure beats the one gif where she's looking smug and brushing off her shoulder...

.... like she's Barbara Bush or something.




(yes yes, I know that's from her 11 hour marathon hearing. But frankly, making that Benghazi hearing look like the bozo circus it was wasn't a difficult chore)

[senz]

147. Barbara Bush came into focus for me when she said

"We like to go rich."

Yes, Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Clinton do have much in common. And judging by the frequency of that photo in DU sig lines, some "Democrats" adore that quality.

[Hepburn]

156. Oh, do I agree!

That is one of the worse pics of Hillary...it's just so arrogant.

[paleotn]

37. Care to refute the points in the post?

Or can you not get beyond the picture?

[Scootaloo]

58. It'd be an elevation of the Clinton follower rhetoric around here, actually

And hey, Bernie's pulled some pretty goofy faces. Go for it. Here, let me start you off!

[TheFarS1de]

161. How dare you !

You mean to say that politicians are humans like everyone else and sometimes take bad pictures ? How dare you !


So that's now the political counter argument , posting a picture is now open to debate ..... ffs . Do they actually have ANY counters to the assertions ? Nope .

[FlatBaroque]

6. There was a secondary, somewhat subtle strategy that Hillary deployed against Bernie

She favorably compared Bernie to terrorists because both want to "destroy" Wall St.

[nashville_brook]

7. indeed -- this is why I believe this is strategy and not simply tactic.

[DirkGently]

24. The whole framing is demented.

Last edited Sun Nov 15, 2015, 08:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Not only is it just generally wrong to invoke 9/11 in a contrived talking point defending the Wall Street fraud that decimated the economy, but Ms. Clinton of all people has no business wielding 9/11 at all.

She not only allied herself in the past with those who exploited that tragedy to con America into possibly the worst foreign policy disaster in our history -- but rolled it out on a night when another city was reeling from the an attack with a direct causal link to the aftermath of her bad decision.

No Iraq war = no ISIS. She should stay 1,000 yards from this arena out of respect and contrition for the damage done by the Iraq war she concedes she was wrong to support.

Instead, she wants to wield it as a weapon to support ... Wall Street?

[nashville_brook]

44. Wall Street = American Democracy (don't believe the hype)

[DirkGently]

53. The more you look at it, the more

calculated it starts to appear.

1. Deflects the question of why Wall Street donates so heavily to her.

2. Wraps itself in the bloody shirt of 9/11, suggesting to question it would be unpatriotic.

3. Insinuates that all of the calls for Wall Street reform are -- as you point out in the OP -- giving terrorists what they want.

4. Consciously ... or unconsciously (and which one is worse, I am not sure) draws on the raw emotions about terrorism in the wake of the Paris attacks.

5. Shows a total lack of awareness of how her own admitted poor judgment regarding our response to 9/11 via a destructive war in Iraq that actually contributed to the rise of ISIS makes her the last person on the stage who should be invoking her personal logic about 9/11.

This is not a wise or helpful approach for Ms. Clinton.

[cantbeserious]

61. Very Well Summarized - From The Preceding Insight - Not A Surprise - Regrettably

eom

[nashville_brook]

118. spot-on deconstruction.

[grasswire]

158. where is that like button?? nt

[DirkGently]

8. An obvious Panic Response, and very telling.

As usual, Hillary looked very good in the debate -- except when she was asked about:

1) Her mistaken support for the war in Iraq, or

2) Her close ties to Wall Street

In these cases, she reaches for a canned response and tries to deflect. She generally goes to identity politics, and she did that first, bringing up her support among women to deflect a question as to why Wall Street donates so much to her, then ... this.

And of all the times to cheapen and exploit 9/11 for political ends, she chose the night after another major terrorist attack on another major city? Completely tone-deaf.

This is when Hillary chills me to the bone. She will be cruising along, sounding reasonable, and then she goes full dark, like when she pushed to count primaries in states she and Obama had agreed not to campaign in ... or last night, invoking a national tragedy, and one she failed to prevent being used to drag the entire world toward disaster in Iraq.

It also tells me the campaign fears these issues, and is frantically trying to generate talking points that might successfully deflect from either her politically opportunistic hawkishness, or her close relationships with the people and organizations who destroyed the economy.

And they are right to fear them. These are the issues that Democrats care about as well. But as the OP says, the fact that she would "go there" to avoid disclaiming her Wall Street ties, says they know exactly what their money is buying.

[AgingAmerican]

11. She fell apart on minimum wage too

Her minimum wage answer degenerated into word salad. Upon which her rivals pounced.

[DirkGently]

16. And universal college education. I think of those other two

issues -- Iraq and Wall Street -- as the two she most frequently Hail Marys about. Maybe because they are prominent in my mind as to why she is not my favorite Dem candidate.

As others have noted, though, "not sending Trump's kids to college" is a pretty terrible framing for why we should not provide tuition-free college. Rich kids will always go to private school, and even if they actually decided to go to public universities, that would only help things, because suddenly the rich would care about the quality of education, rather than how many "welders" we are training.

[SmittynMo]

50. You nailed it n/t

[nashville_brook]

84. this was in incredibly bad faith. no one believes children of privilege go to public schools

but it takes a moment of reflection for people to realize this. it's not immediately obvious in conversation, so she can pass it off in "debate" and it might go unexamined. then the "very serious ones" might even pick up on it and try to cast their bets with "debt-free" rather than "free" college, making Sanders out to be a wild spender (as if they give two shits about spending wildly), but it's all bad faith rhetoric. Clinton will toe the neoliberal line that gives just enough lip service to liberal-sounding ideas, while her people are taking checks from donors who have major interest in seeing none of these policies come to pass.

[MoonchildCA]

141. That "Trump's kids" comment makes me fume.

You might as well take away Social Security, because what will Trump's kid need with the spare change?

Not only would they never go to public college, but even if they did, even if a few "rich" kids benefit from a social program of some sort that they don't need, do we now deprive everyone?

Grrrrrrrr!

[DirkGently]

145. Any argument against full-throttle public education

... is hard to fathom, isn't it? Is there ANYTHING that benefits the country as a whole more than an educated populace?

Any better defense against bad governance, malicious ignorance, under-employment?

Is there anything we should take more pride in as a "wealthy" country than that we can afford the best education for EVERYONE?

To see Hillary Clinton throw up such a contrived argument against it was, like her "9/11" comment, simply chilling.

[artislife]

14. .." and then she goes full dark.."

Perfectly put.

[reformist2]

15. Cut it out. I said, cut it out!

[DirkGently]

21. ...

[misterhighwasted]

23. bernie looked good also. Until his opening statement, that is.

With little dignity & consideration, he chose to quickly move passed the respectful opportunity to address the Paris attacks, as a Leader of the US would certainly do. In the age of terrorism & France being a friend & ally, bernie spent the briefest time honoring the people of Paris in favor of reverting to subjects he is familiar with. The opening given at all his stump speeches.
His usual Keywords were hit in his opening as well as the end.
Sound bites of an over rehearsed stump speech.

Nothing else was offered to show the man has depth beyond sound bites, keywords to motivate his base & promises of a dream with no policy in place to make it a reality.
Bernie honestly couldn't respond to the Paris crises beyond what he felt because he is totally unprepared to act in a leadership position necessary to face Global issues. He is fine in a State or Senate position, but clearly by his evasive opening statement, he is in no way ready to Lead the United States as Commander in Chief.
Thanks
This is MY opinion.

[rynestonecowboy]

51. I'm sorry

but if you feel like Sander's opening remark didn't speak enough about a current event and therefore that alone means he is not qualified to be president you sir are either extremely biased or uninformed on the issues our country is confronted with today. Even if you are an HRC supporter I don't know how anyone in good conscience could not find fault in her response to the question and her cozy alliance with an industry that almost destroyed our country just seven years ago.

[in_cog_ni_to]

68. Welcome to DU!

You will notice the Hillary supporters never concede anything, ever AND they always have to have the last word on everything. Hang around. You'll see.

Again, welcome to DU!

[misterhighwasted]

124. Lol, it appears neither side is giving up having the last word

Neither side.
Own that.

[misterhighwasted]

78. Lets talk about how bernies MIC coziness and his profit before people.

He didn't vote for that big war funding package to "help the troops" . He grabbed a big old profit from the MIC Corporate Contractors for himself.
Bernie sanders talks outta both sides of his mouth.
He was all in favor of the nasty F-35 when it benefitted him.
For a guy thats been running a campaign shouting loudly his opposition to Corporation, the War & big old Wall Street, who certainly has its hands in profitting from MIC Contracts, bernie was right there with his hand raised when this MIC Contracts for the F-35 were given out.

Hypocracy is bernies real m.o.
I'm anxious for someone to ask bernie to own this choice he made, in one of the upcoming debates.
Maybe OMalley will confront bernie about how anti he really is.
Bernie of course, will dodge this question also.
Bets.
Thanks for listening.
Nite

[hueymahl]

107. Wow, talk about a hit-piece!

Attacking Bernie on his integrity and accusing him of hypocrisy is about as Rovian as it gets. Congratulations.

[misterhighwasted]

114. Nope, its truth.

Bernie owns that big old MIC Corporate piece of pork.
F-35 contract didn't just show up in VT one day. Bernie brought it .
The F-35. Built to fire 3300 rnds pr minute with no distinction as to who its killing.
No Vote became another story.

[hueymahl]

119. The hypocrisy is yours

And so is the deflection, distortion, etc.

If you think this is such an important vote, write an OP about it. Instead you raise it in an attempt to deflect from the original OP instead of responding substantively to it. You have done this throughout this thread.

[misterhighwasted]

122. I have mentioned this subject many times.

I've stated the facts & there's nothing to argue nor defend in this matter.
Bernie owns it.

[hueymahl]

150. And you cling to it like a talisman

I'm guessing you are not going to give a substantive response to the OP?

[OnyxCollie]

116. Hillary Clinton ranks fourth in contributions from defense contractors.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2016&ind=D

Bernie is nowhere on the list.

[misterhighwasted]

120. Doesn't negate his MIC Corporate contract.

Bernie is the one stumping on his anti-war No Vote.
This is where the hypocracy lies.
He was against till he was for it. Thats the hypocracy and it is his to own. HRC had nothing to do with either of Bernies decisions.
Not even an argument, it is just fact.
Enjoy your day.

[OnyxCollie]

123. But it does support her vote for war in Iraq

her glee in killing Quaddafi, and her eagerness to "totally obliterate" Iran.

War mongers gotta get paid.

[misterhighwasted]

126. No no, stop making Bernies No Vote/Ye$ Vote into

..a HRC matter. Bernie owns his votes as does HRC.
Divergence from Bernies No then Ye$ Vote has nothing to do with HRC, as much as you'd like to make it a "he's good she's bad" issue.
Bernie is responsible for his own decisions.
He welcomed the MIC Corporate F-35 piece of pork into his State. HRC had nothing to do with that.

There would be no charge of hypocracy were he not running a campaign on his No Vote while ignoring that big Ye$ Vote.
I would like Mr Sanders to address this matter & perhaps lay to rest the apparant hypocracy, as many do see it.

Perhaps he will clear this up in the next debate, & we'll all have an answer.
Avoiding it won't make it go away.
Thanks for your time.
Bye.

[OnyxCollie]

129. Blah, blah, words.

The only connection I was making was between contributions from defense contractors and Hillary's support for war.

Get paid; support war.

Vote for the war candidate if it makes you happy.

[misterhighwasted]

131. Which war candidate would that be?

Hard to tell when they've all got their fingers in the Corporate pot o gold. Bernie dipped in too.
War's an irresistably profitable business, it appears.
Considering the massive money grab the F-35 project became.
Dip in, grab a handful. Woot!

[OnyxCollie]

135. The one who voted to destabilize Iraq and give birth to ISIS.

Last edited Mon Nov 16, 2015, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

The one who voted for the PATRIOT Act.

The one who supported overthrowing the regime in Libya.

The one who will send US troops into war and "obliterate Iran" if it attacks not the US, but Israel.

THAT war candidate.

[jeff47]

143. So the MIC are morons?

If Sanders is so great for them, how come they aren't giving him lots of money?

[SammyWinstonJack]

95. Extremely biased wins it.

[LiberalArkie]

25. The wealthy politicians could resolve their whole problem by pretending to be someone else

and meet with the lower class people. The riches problem is they know nothing any more about how the lower class live and survive. Sure they may have been that as a child but that was more that 40 years ago. And very few of the politicians probably went to bed hungry or cold. Asking most of our politicians smile questions about life is like asking Queen Elizabeth about it.

HRC really can't give us a response about those questions. We are generally not well off so we can never under how it must feel to be able to call a CEO of a bank and talk to them. And HRC will never know what it is like to loose a child or kin to a war or have one come back without a body part.

[onecaliberal]

10. And there you have it.

It's not like we didn't already know that. I mean, look at all the money they're giving her.

[darkangel218]

13. K&R!

Good post.

[bvar22]

22. DURec.

Truth Hurts.

[beam me up scottie]

26. K & R

I thought Hillary would saber rattle but I really didn't expect to see her invoke 9/11.

That was truly cringe worthy.

[sarge43]

27. Huh. She did a Jeb! Bush

Jammed both feet in her mouth at the same time.

[Maineman]

30. For those who are "going back and forth"

First, decide what you think are the nation's three most basic most fundamental problems. THEN decide which candidate you think is most likely to try to resolve those problems. Vote for that person and ignore all of the political BS for the next several months.

[AzDar]

31. K & R

[WillyT]

33. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[angrychair]

34. Always remember

Only 17% of this candidate's donations come from $200 or less according to the OpenSecrets. Over 63% of contributors have already given the maximum legal donation for the entire campaign cycle, primary and general, to that candidate's campaign.

What about Bernie Sanders? OpenSecrets states that 74% of his donations come $200 or less. Only 1% of Bernie Sanders campaign contributors are at the legal limit for the campaign cycle.

Donaton information for all candidates
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0


"If a 'Democratic candidate' cannot knock out Bernie Sanders early on, she will find much of her donor base is maxed out while he can keep the money flowing with simple email appeals that cost him little more than the processing fee on the credit cards."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/10/26/bernie-sanders-ben-carson-use-internet-to-show-campaign-donation-limits-are-irrelevant/

[nashville_brook]

72. ^^THIS is astounding.

i must have read it twice and it didn't sink in until the third pass. you're right, there's a time limit to how long is needed to knock Bernie out before he's gathered enough steam to be a real threat.

we might be past that point.

[angrychair]

79. Thanks!

[grasswire]

159. this needs an OP nt

[DirkGently]

128. THiS ^

... is a very interesting and worthwhile observation.

[Dont call me Shirley]

35. She borrowed that line from the GOP. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does she think the 99% are the terrorists?!

[zentrum]

36. And I'm one of the women

…....donors who gave to Bernie!

I go for the candidate who has the most feminist policies and instincts. You know, $15 minimum wage, not going into disastrous unnecessary wars, not ending Glass-Steagall, not throwing welfare mothers off aid with no safety net etc etc. And a simple "I made a mistake" doesn't cut it, 1000's of ruined lives later.

[cantbeserious]

57. Preach It - Feeling The Bern

eom

[nashville_brook]

74. just shouting about identity doesn't work for me anymore -- i have to see candidates actually doing

the work. Bernie's done the work for longer than anyone.

[zentrum]

80. Yup. Well said.

[SammyWinstonJack]

96. +1000000

[marym625]

39. K&R!

Excellent. Thanks for this

[LovingA2andMI]

41. #WallStreetProfitablyMatters.....

[nashville_brook]

75. i can't believe that during the big week of NATIONAL Fight for $15 strikes, HRC thought $12 was

the talking point to elevate.

smooth move.

[LovingA2andMI]

76. Yep....

Real Smooth....

[SoapBox]

42. K & R!

Gosh...I guess we were all just dreaming that she tried to use 9/11 for political gain.

Uh huh.

[NorthCarolina]

43. Huge K&R!

You might take some flak for the photo though.

[PatrynXX]

48. Frankly after last night think she's made sure whoever wins on the Right will get the Presidency

I don't see how she can win now. even with all the Clinton Drones out there...

[SammyWinstonJack]

98. I was thinking the same. She sealed her fate.

[cantbeserious]

54. And There It Is - We All Know The Truth - Still Many Pretend Otherwise

eom

[ChiciB1]

115. Reading Through Many Of These Posts, I Who Will Fervently

support Bernie throughout find myself so very EXTREMELY UPSET and ANGERED that this country, THIS Democratic Party will do everything in it's POWER to negate ANY candidate who dares to oppose Hillary and run against her!

It seems not to matter WHAT she says, WHAT she does or WHAT her past or present actions are, TPTB will support her and protect her from ANY true criticism. THEY have all they need to bury and stamp out ANYONE who dares to disagree with her. ANYONE, especially the many of what might be "we the people" who feel deeply that what this country has become is wrongheaded and WILL be ignored and squashed by the one card they hold. The Ace in every deck of cards that will win the day... MONEY!

Never have I felt so insignificant as I do now. At this point in time I believe more than ever that my beliefs are the beliefs this country was founded on. We have stayed so far from fairness and equality that I fear we may never recover. Over this past weekend I've been unable to clear my mind of a book I once read. The Rise And Fall Of The Roman Empire!

It haunts me and scares me more than ever!

[cantbeserious]

127. Agreed - Very Well Said - Thank You For Sharing

eom

[Hiraeth]

56. Dear Hillary, Ever heard of Iceland?

Iceland Jails Bankers, Erases Citizens’ Debt, Recovers Strongly

Icelanders who pelted parliament with rocks in 2009 demanding their leaders and bankers answer for the country’s economic and financial collapse are reaping the benefits of their anger.

Since the end of 2008, the island’s banks have forgiven loans equivalent to 13 percent of gross domestic product, easing the debt burdens of more than a quarter of the population.

The island’s steps to resurrect itself since 2008, when its banks defaulted on $85 billion, are proving effective. Iceland’s economy will this year outgrow the euro area and the developed world on average, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates.

Iceland’s approach to dealing with the meltdown has put the needs of its population ahead of the markets at every turn. Once it became clear back in October 2008 that the island’s banks were beyond saving, the government stepped in, ring-fenced the domestic accounts, and left international creditors in the lurch. The central bank imposed capital controls to halt the ensuing sell-off of the krona and new state-controlled banks were created from the remnants of the lenders that failed.

more at link:
http://disinfo.com/2012/07/iceland-jails-bankers-erases-citizens-debt-recovers-strongly/

[DirkGently]

60. Worth pointing out

... just as it is to the conservatives still arguing that American anti-discrimination laws caused the housing crisis and the Great Recession.

No redlining laws in Iceland. No Fannie. No Freddie. And yet their banks managed to go down the same road, with the same results.

At least though, as you point out, their government has had the backbone to recognize it.

[nashville_brook]

125. +100000

[kath]

63. "There’s “winning ugly,” and then there’s becoming so ugly that you deserve to lose. This might be

one of those times."

BAM! The writer nails it in the last few lines of that article.

[Armstead]

64. Totally inexcusable exploitation of tragedy - Trumpworthy

Raising the bloody sheet of 9-11 in a hamhanded attempt to deflect attention from the real reason she has such a cozy relationship with Wall St.......A Trumpworthy move by Clinton

[passiveporcupine]

65. I'm all for exposing Hillary for what she is...but

Regulate Wall Street and the terrorists win. It’s classic Clintonian triangulation.

She never said or implied this.

She was wrong to use sexism and 9/11, but she never did this. And to accuse her of this is shit.

[Cheese Sandwich]

66. wow

This is a thing of beauty. Great read.

[rhett o rick]

67. At some point I expect her to say, "I support Wall Street and their isn't anything you can do

about it."

[sabrina 1]

77. Giuliani is exactly who I thought of when she invoked 9/11 as a defense for her taking huge

amounts of money from Wall St to further her political ambitions.

[d_legendary1]

81. Yeah I found it strange that she would invoke 9/11 and women donors when asked about her

wall street money. Worst non-answer I've ever heard.

[MaggieD]

83. This blog article is ridiculous nonsense

[cui bono]

88. "War, Gender and 9/11"

[stonecutter357]

89. more and more desperate!

[BeanMusical]

104. Yes, I feel bad for Hillary.

[Scuba]

90. It was shameful, as is defending it.

[Betty Karlson]

91. She should be toast for that remark only.

She's starting to talk like a DINO.

[hueymahl]

109. At what point do you shift from DINO to RINO?

She is moving along that scale pretty quickly.

[Betty Karlson]

130. That question is quite easily answered:

a DINO is registered as a Democrat, but without adhering to the core principles of the party - or to the practical policies that seek to implement those principals.

a RINO is registered as a Republican, but without etc...
I'd say that since the GOP was once the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, pretty much any federally elected Republican could be considered a RINO at this point.

And I am not saying that core principles cannot change. But if one was once a Goldwater girl and joined the Democratic Party because one didn't like the rightward drift of the GOP, if one has been a Republican at heart while doing so, if one has been trying to make the Democratic Party into the GOP of yore by introducing third ways, if one reiterates GOP talking points whenever an opportunity or necessity presents itself, ...

... so yeah, then one may have been, and may still be, a DINO.

[daybranch]

92. The twin towers were a symbol of the oppression of the middle east

so was the pentagon. I regret the deaths but the Pentagon and wall Street were guilty of exploiting the countries of the middle east for their wealth. Still are. 911 should have been the wake up call that they were not going to take it anymore. And as a combat veteran I would caution each of you who call these cowardly attacks on innocent civilians to drop the world cowardly. These guys were willing to choose to die for a cause they believed in. How many of us can say if we had a chance to choose death for a cause we would do the same. Crazy yes but cowardly , certainly not. Until we are seen as an ally of the people in the middle east and not an exploiter helping oppress the people, terrorism will not stop and in fact will grow as we watch the middle east become more and more competitive for basics such as water, clean air, arable land, food etc. Its the inequality stupid as one person rightly said.

[smilingwen]

121. You are so right

When we topple leaders of other countries and choose their dictators or even 'democratically' elected officials, they rightly become enraged. The manipulation in Haiti is just one more example. Perhaps we should look at the underlying causes of terrorism instead of adding more fuel to their hatred.

People both here and abroad do not like being oppressed. Multi-national companies now own our government, and many others as well. We the people are sick of it! Wars are 'for profit' not for 'cause' for the most part, and the people on all sides of the situation are being manipulated and used for the gain of the few. They get us to hate each other while they laugh all the way to the bank...oh, wait many of them ARE the bank.

[lovemydog]

93. Awesome, except it's not what she said last night

or ever.

[brooklynite]

97. I wasn't prepared to accept your argument...

...but then I saw that you used a funny photo of Clinton, so I took it more seriously.

[raouldukelives]

99. Because 9/11! nt

[Fuddnik]

100. Hillary Giuliani.

A noun, a verb, 911, and Wall Street.

[Thespian2]

101. By using September 11 as an excuse for

vacuuming up money from corporations and Wall Street criminals, the 1%er has announced that underneath it all...she is a believer in the Repukkkrian doctrine...

Corporate CEO's spend money to elect the 1%er because she is a better choice for them than any of the Repukkkrian candidates...

[nashville_brook]

102. [phone]

[saidsimplesimon]

105. "the Terrorists Win": the talking heads on

Morning Joe were delighted to repeat ad nauseam Mrs. Clinton's remark, "You can not contain ISIL." She has broken with the President's plan that has kept US safe at home and our military out of harm's way. imho, she is running her campaign based on the shifting winds of public opinion.

I support Senator Sanders.

[nashville_brook]

108. policy vs rhetoric

part of the reason she goes so deep with this messaging is b/c they don't have enough policy game. they're not going to take the most courageous POLICY position, so they assume the most outrageous RHETORICAL position.

[BeanMusical]

106. She really has no shame.

And what she said is pretty weird too.

[Enthusiast]

111. How could anyone believe this would play in Peoria?

This tells us a great deal about the candidate and her lack of respect for the electorate.

[nashville_brook]

117. i bet there was the notion that the Paris attacks would stoke anti-terrorism sentiment

that would play especially well in Peoria. i just don't see that happening. it was a miscalculation.

[stonecutter357]

113. .

[raindaddy]

132. That was a huge red flag! Proceed at your own risk

The fact she's against breaking up and regulating fraudulent banks that have been allowed to get big enough they can take down our whole economic system should tell you everything you need to know about a Clinton Presidency. But her momentary Giuliani impersonation should tell you all you need to know about her character..

[DirkGently]

137. The Washington Post notes Wall Street supported Clinton before 9/11

There's just one catch: Clinton represented New York during that period because she won election in 2000. And even then, before 9/11, she got a lot of money from Wall Street.

The Center for Responsive Politics identifies the top 20 employers that gave to Clinton during that cycle. At the top of the list is Citigroup, whose employees gave a combined $105,900 to Clinton well before 9/11. (Citigroup's PAC gave an additional $2,000.) No. 4 on the list is Goldman Sachs, whose employees gave nearly $89,000. No. 8 is the financial services company UBS. No. 10? Chase. In total, the center calculates that Clinton took in nearly $1.2 million from the "securities and investment" industry between 1999 and 2002.

Clinton's 2000 campaign filing from the FEC reveals 44 donations from Citigroup, 54 from Goldman, 36 from Paine Webber, 43 from Deloitte, 21 from Credit Suisse and 18 from Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. There are a number of other financial firms that appear in the list; these are just the most frequent donors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/16/wall-street-loved-hillary-clinton-before-911-too/

[AlbertCat]

138. If billionaires, hedge fund managers and Wall Street bankers gave money away just because....

.....it felt good, we’d have fully-funded public infrastructure, schools and arts.


BINGO!

[rhett o rick]

146. Agree. They invest their billions in the political process to guarantee that we

don't have those things. They take away from their profits.

[Major Hogwash]

140. Terrific OP.

Exposing Hillary as the corporate-owned candidate was exactly what was needed!!!

[hedgehog]

148. K&R

[emsimon33]

149. Her record is so bad that she must resort to such tactics

She will never be president and her being the nominee will lose us the White House and even more Senate and Congressional seats.

[nashville_brook]

151. i still think she has a good chance of being president -- all the more reason

to be aware of these tendencies.

i mean -- having lived thru Reagan and Bush, i'm not so deluded as to think that an R couldn't "possibly" win. it's possible. but whoever we nominate, we can get them elected with enough elbow grease on our ground game.

i think this actually puts more onus on the party to assuage the left of their loyalty to Sanders should he win the primaries. will they put all their assets in play to bring the whole ground game? or are they only interested in using those assets for HRC?

[emsimon33]

162. I have been a political activist since I was 9 years old

And I have always been a Democrat. Not one of my activist friends--all Democrats and most of them women--will vote for Hillary or work for her. That to me says something. They are tired of being used and by the Third Way, neoliberal "Democrats" taking them for granted. They did not vote in 2014 and they will not vote inn 2016. The polls for Hillary are high because she is known, not because people will brave the cold weather to vote for her in November 2016.

She will not energize the base to come out and vote so we are fried if she is the nominee.

[nashville_brook]

163. yep, you're right - i'm in FL and have seen way too many cycles of neoliberal Dems losing

b/c the party has decided that The Base doesn't exist anymore.

putting HRC up against an insurgent R could be the way we get to a President Trump.

[lexington filly]

152. Trash Hillary if you like. But don't insult my comprehension skills!

Can't believe the writer twisted and elevated relatively benign quotes into monstrous meanings with the intent to slime Hillary's character. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion but really, such transparent attempts at in-your-face manipulation disrespects readers' intelligence. And it's all so heavy handed as to give me a slight headache.

"....there’s no escaping the fact that this cheapens the experience of every woman who actually has been silenced...."
Nope. I escaped. None of my experiences were cheapened and I've had plenty.
"....they are still wiping the blood off the streets in Paris. Why would anyone think it’s okay..."
Well obviously you think it's okay to exploit Paris by using such graphic prose to criticize Hillary for talking about terrorism when that was a main topic of the debate.

Hillary's connection to Wall Street concerns me, as does Senator Schumer's. I question whether because of that, he shouldn't take Harry Reed's place. I have other concerns about Senator Sanders. Let's talk about our concerns not manipulate, insult, malign, or even wheedle, on behalf of favored candidates.

[nashville_brook]

155. tell that to the NY Times editorial board

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opinion/hillary-clinton-botches-wall-street-questions.html?_r=0

[EEO]

153. Yup. Pretty much what she said, invoking 9/11 to defend her ass from attacks on rich donors.

What else should we expect from a person who thinks being a woman is a professional qualification for president to be hyped? Yes. The below is satire, and it captures the absurdity pretty damned well.

Hillary: First Woman President Worth Death of Middle Class

WASHINGTON (The Nil Admirari) - Today, Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Americans electing the United States' first female president was worth the final collapse and permanent extinction of the American middle class. Clinton urged Americans to not be sexist, and to vote for her instead of trying to prevent both their standard of living and wages from continuing their free fall courtesy of the very people bankrolling her presidential campaign.

And...

Clinton added, "It is painfully clear to me the biggest sexist in America is that horrible Bernie Sanders, who keeps focusing on issues like rising income inequality that a large majority of Americans are deeply concerned about. Seriously, Americans just need to drop their silly, sexist, and sentimental attachment to the middle class and vote for me."

More at link...

[riversedge]

160. Not only does the OP make up stuff of what she Thinks Hilllary is thinking, but invokes the Paris

terror incident in doing so. How does the OP know Hillary 'prepared' this??? Can she read minds?? Then the OP actually invokes a made up speculation and tries to tell readers that Hillary was thinking this!! Hypocrite!!


.....It couldn’t be clearer that she prepared this statement to push back on her coziness to Wall Street interests, specifically with the Paris attacks in mind. Of all the moments to exploit 9/11, she did so while they are still wiping the blood off the streets in Paris. Why would anyone think it’s okay to stoke these fears, to these ends, at this time?.. from the OP.