This expose by Abby Martin shows an implicit quid pro quo with massive exchanges of money and favors and Clinton's extraordinarily hawkish behavior. The Secretary would be easy to outskirt her both on the left and the right, and to smear for her lack of integrity.
She doesn't seem honest -- The more people get to know her, the less they like her, as many trend lines showing Sanders closing a 50-point gap illustrate. A poll two months ago found 37 percent describe her as "honest and trustworthy." We continually hear about how few people like and trust her. Yet her statements continue to be carefully crafted and easy to expose as highly deceptive. Also the former "Goldwater girl" will have trouble explaining her evolution on almost every major issue -- a revolution from within perhaps, when we need a revolution outside.
Democrats, in particular, like their politicians to be honest and working in the public interest, and independents, who comprise an estimated 42 percent of the electorate, are in the mood for truth also. If she's seen as dishonest now -- even after an extremely clean, positive campaign (especially in light of her weaknesses) -- how will she be perceived after Trump or Cruz launches 1000 times more attacks based on the truths of her life? Are we to believe it would not take a toll?
She polls weakly with independents -- Even now, Clinton polls extremely low with independents, falling behind Sanders by 36 points with those who make up the largest demographic. So her strength in the primary, particularly as it builds on the reliably Republican states of the South, atrophies when it comes to the general election.
She loses Democratic votes -- Clinton loses many more Sanders voters than the other way. An estimated 20 to 25 percent of his supporters say they won't vote for her (and it's hard to see how it will change given her intractability) vs. 3 percent of her supporters. There are likely many reasons for that -- her campaign has indisputably emphasized this time around the significance of a female president, identity politics that grates on many Democrats who expected a female Democratic candidate to have, if anything, a strong commitment to social justice and peace, rather than to corporate entitlement and war. And the repeated lecturing of millennials and women by Clinton's supporters hardly helps.
His supporters are looking for a leader that champions systemic change. Their differences are captured in the common memes with she and Kasich as the only two candidates to vote for if you believe "sh*t isn't broken" (but a vote for her for those who believe "women are people.") Sanders has long been fighting the system. A second meme says, "For every mistake America has made in past 30 years you can go and find a video of Bernie Sanders trying to prevent it" (the Panama free trade agreement, cutting taxes on the rich, the crime bill, etc.) Yes, his supporters stand for equal pay and reproductive access, but they take a hard stand on militarism, corrupt corporate finance, inequality, health care and other issues.
She may like thinking small, but FDR is in -- "I don't think any Democrat's ever won saying,
'We can't think that big - we ought to really downsize here because it's not realistic," Vice President Joe Biden said on April 21. "C'mon man, this is the Democratic Party! I'm not part of the party that says, 'Well, we can't do it.'"
Interestingly enough, Clinton has endorsed rapid change when it benefits corporations - for example on war and trade - even while she urges caution in implementing government programs to help the American population. It's pragmatism for government and the people, pedal to the metal for corporations. But why should only corporations be able to think big?
Despite Hillary Clinton announcing her campaign on Roosevelt Island, she does not represent the heir apparent to these ideas. With her embrace of globalization and buddying up to corporations financially, she represents the policies that have shifted power to corporations and left the vast majority of Americans served by predatory corporations and banks, with little financial cushion. (In fact, Tom Frank's "What's the Matter With the Democratic Party?" - called "Listen Liberal" - has been described as the most important book of 2016.) Her record - and an unconvincing commitment to relatively new Sanders-endorsed policies that hurt her long-time, significant donors - generally doesn't play well to much of the electorate.
She polls worse against Trump and Cruz - Ah, the electability question. There has long been polling data that indicates Sanders beats Trump by 14 points or more, far more than Clinton, and the Vermont Senator is more competitive against Cruz also.
She has secrets and may have committed crimes -- Every day, people everywhere ask questions about Hillary Clinton that no one should ask about a presidential candidate. Is today the day she'll get indicted for her e-mail activity? If she does get indicted, presumably for violating the Espionage Act (ironically used heavily and unfairly by the Obama administration with little criticism from her), how will it affect her polling? What if she's not indicted due to political pressure, but the material leaks out? What's in the e-mails that should be FOIAable? What's in all those speeches to Goldman Sachs and others (in the last few years 12 speeches to Wall Street banks that netted her $3 million)? How did contributions to the Clinton Foundation affect arms deals, militarism, climate and energy policy, and oppressive policies at home and abroad? These are things virtually ignored by Sanders that will and probably should be up for fair game in the general election.
Her history and record seem nonexistent -- A common meme shows Sanders as having far more political experience. In particular also, Clinton's legislative accomplishments as senator were unimpressive, while "Amendment King" Sanders left a lasting and substantial legislative record, a story irrationally later changed by the New York Times who undoubtedly had a heart attack when they realized they had written a positive story about Sanders (and yes, NYT, diversity would be great.) Clinton has very little to show for her time as Secretary of State (she shies away from Honduras, "Hillary's War" in Libya, her promotion of fracking abroad, etc.) and head of the Clinton Foundation. In contrast, Sanders' videos make us wish we elected him president in 2000.
Today's thinkers and activists oppose her -- The great raft of intellectuals, writers and activists deeply devoted to social justice, largely permanent outsiders uninterested in lobbying for a job in the administration, overwhelmingly favor Sanders. Sure, the revolving door types that have architected and championed unfettered globalization and are unconcerned with gaping holes in our safety net favor Clinton. But we should instead turn to the new guides we will need, as we caste off the corrupt models of the past and present.
What do the thought leaders of the future say? Those who have shone spotlight on corruption, warned us of against systemic oppression, and pointed us in a better direction? The vast majority support Sanders. All have concerns about a Hillary presidency: "The New Jim Crow" author Michelle Alexander, MacArthur genius award winner Ta-Nehisi Coates, "The End of Poverty" author Jeffrey Sachs, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, "Chi-Raq" director Spike Lee, author Noam Chomsky, actress and activist Rosario Dawson, former State Sen. Nina Turner, inequality expert Les Leopold, professor Cornel West, former NAACP President Ben Jealous, "Capital in the 21st Century" author Tom Piketty, long-time whistleblower Sy Hersh, and "What's the Matter with Kansas?" author Tom Frank, and pioneering feminist bell hooks. (Even the real life inspiration for "Wall Street's" Gordon Gekko offers a sound economic critique.)
These are people who often speak unpleasant truths to power. People whose warnings we should have heeded and whose wise counsel should have followed. Those who have offered a strong and consistent vision of creating a society of justice -- free of the racism, militarism, and poverty (and sexism) that has lay at the heart of our most important social movements.
It would be a mistake to assume while the battle is being waged for the Republican party, there is not an equally fierce and important battle for the soul of the Democratic party. It's being waged over the leadership, institutionally and politically; the means of fundraising; the priorities up and down the ticket; the platform; the behavior that we tolerate; the meaning of democracy and how it applies to politicians; and the scope and vision for our nation. Casting away a politician favored by millennials, by Democrats and independents, by devoted intellectuals, discarding an uncharacteristically bold senator who has been screwed by a rigged system and sophisticated techniques of manipulation would be tremendously harmful to our nation.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
