• Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On July - 13 - 2015

Hillary Clinton5

Hillary Clinton made an economic speech today and in it she listed many views that were very Progressive including wanting to prosecute both individuals and their Wall Street companies for criminal actions. It would be hard to press a better button for the base of Progressives in the Democratic Party…and she certainly knows that.

Faced with strong popularity growing for Bernie Sanders’ opposing campaign, it isn’t surprising to see this strategic move to “out-Bernie” Bernie but the real question that arises is, if it is so effortless for Hillary to drastically change her more conservative stances she held until very recently, coincidentally, in a primary where Progressive stands would be most beneficial, just how genuine and permanent are these changes of opinion?

The place to begin is with the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton are very close and entwined with Wall Street. The Clinton Foundation is an enormous entity that endlessly seeks huge sums of money and Wall Street has been a very generous contributor. Chelsea Clinton worked for a hedge fund firm and her husband ran one so its even in the family. Wall Street remains a big financier of the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign.

So one would reasonably ask, if Wall Street continues to be close with Hillary and donating to her while she continues to attack them in speeches…do they know something that Progressive Democrat voters may not know? If her threats to go after Wall Street haven’t made Wall Street come out against her or hesitate in backing her, wouldn’t it be fair to assume that they may have a reason to not be too concerned by what she is saying?

It is a standard cynical practice in the Presidential race, for candidates to pander to their base in the primaries then when they get to the general election, they move to the middle on issues. It’s also a standard in each party that in their primary, the front runner will often try to move farther to the right in the GOP and farther to the left in the Democratic Party to try and take the wind out of the sails of their primary challengers.

It is the way the game is often played but that doesn’t mean it is ethical. It is in fact purposely lying to the very people who decide who they want to represent their views as their party’s candidate. But lying has been institutionalized in our democracy so the public has basically been told not to whine after the fact when they’ve voted for a candidate who tricked them (Scott Walker’s political career is based primarily on this).

At this point, it is challenging to put aside the concern that Hillary may have reassured Wall Street that she will be speaking out against them to win the primary but that they shouldn’t take it seriously because she won’t actually follow through with the attacks if elected.

Even if this was the case, there is the possibility that despite the best made plans…going too far down the populist road may make it too politically difficult to turn back. So if Hillary had intended to deceive Democratic voters about her true views of Wall Street, if that expectation is cemented in place, not just by Dems but by independent voters who could help elect her in the General Election, she would have a more difficult choice to make. Reverse her course on reigning in Wall Street and risk losing a bid at a second term at the hands of voters who feel betrayed or staying the course and being abandoned by Wall Street in her re-election fundraising.

Doing the right thing can often be much more difficult than doing the wrong thing. Standing up to Wall Street is difficult for a politician, pretending to do so with a wink and a nod is easy.

One would hope Hillary is earnest in her stands to hold Wall Street criminally accountable and strongly regulate them. Whether it was originally intended or not, hopefully the importance of doing the right thing by standing with 99.9% of Americans and opposing the destructive power and greed of Wall Street would end up prevailing.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

37 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. goleafsgo says:

    Very interesting article, AdLib. If I could vote (I am Canadian) I would find it difficult choosing between Hillary and Bernie. I can understand why the Republicans are focusing on Hillary as not being “trustworthy.” I think it is a Frank Luntz tactic that is working…at least it seems to be. It gives me pause when I think of her efforts against Obama during the 2008 campaign. And then there’s Bill. What can I say other than I would not want him directing the President.

    I am impressed, so far, with Bernie…his honesty, his courage, and the way he is running his campaign. The fight for the 50 states is impressive. 3500 simultaneous local organized meetings occurred on the July 29. Amazing. Hillary only had 1/5th the number of parties in June. He call this his political revolution. Can he win? I do not know.

    However, there is one guy that I really could support if he were to run…
    that is Vice President Joe Biden. He is a true statesman…a GOOD man.

    Pardon my naivete’ but, after all of this happens..the electing of a Democratic President, I have only one question. How does the President get anything done if Republicans maintain the Congress? Maybe two… Can America survive another 8 years of a do nothing Congress?

    • AdLib says:

      goleafsgo, I agree, the Repubs know that trustworthiness is Hillary’s weakness and are hammering on it. Bill of course lied about Lewinsky, Hillary lied about being shot at on the Bosnia Tarmac, she also used a personal server for her emails, much more on top of that too. So the public is open to accepting attacks on her trustworthiness and Repub’s will push that hard.

      Bernie clearly is carrying the populist banner successfully so his campaign has the most excitement and energy. Hillary’s campaign feels so corporate and wearing the clothes of populism that just don’t seem to fit properly.

      I too would like Biden in the race but from what I’ve heard, he’s backing away from it.

      As for what a Dem President can get done, I think Dems retaking the Senate could happen so that would help and as far as I’m concerned, Obama has laid out a roadmap for getting some important things done even without having Congress helping.

      And the biggest thing that a Dem President could accomplish in the next term is replace retiring SCOTUS judges with at least moderates and flip the majority away from the RW. That could make for a lot of big changes in the country.

      • goleafsgo says:

        Thanks for your reply, AdLib. I know when I come to the Planet I will find articulate, knowledgeable articles, and mature debates often tinged with humour.

        I would hope a Dem President would build on President Obama’s accomplishments. They reflect his far reaching vision and could never be completed in just 8 years.

        You are right about the SCOTUS. I shiver to think of a Republican President having the ability to replace retiring judges.

        I wish you good luck in the upcoming election. We, in the rest of the world, are counting on you to make the right decision.

  2. Trump the cat!



  3. filo says:

    Hillary talks the talk but Bernie walks the walk.

    • choicelady says:

      I have to disagree about Bernie. His policy proposals are what President Obama is DOING, but he gives no credit. He proposes ideas that are also in play with this administration but held up by the same damned Congress that Obama faces.

      He has nothing in hand that addresses anything but generalities. His own record is pitiful -- three bills passed in the Senate. Two were renaming post offices. He has NOT walked the walk, and he has no policies, only slogans. I am so fed up with his ilk I could spit. We have a chance for a real progressive maybe -- and he’s not it.

      I am appalled at his tin ear on race. So what if he marched with Rev. King 52 years ago? He has done NOTHING on racial justice since. He was MIA on Ferguson, NYC, and especially Charleston going so far as to interrupt a memorial service for the 9 victims on the Capitol lawn while he pounded the lectern for pension reform. That’s white effing privilege at play, and I am furious he cannot and will not give us better.

      I have no idea where Hillary will be as president. I have reasons that are deeply personal to like her and reasons that are deeply worried on policy to NOT like her. But she’s far more focused than is Bernie. He either needs to grow up and stop with the rhetoric or I’m done. Until he tells us HOW we will get what he wants -- and how he would build on the Obama legacy -- he’s just another Emo with no substance, no capacity, no juice, no chops.

      • Nirek says:

        CL, because I respect you I am going to let my son’s post speak for me. AdLib also made many of my points. Suffice to say I agree to disagree with you on Bernie.


      • AdLib says:

        CL, I don’t know that the label of “emo” fits Bernie Sanders. I can recall times when Bernie was very critical of Obama and I strongly opposed his biting criticisms but as you say, for the most part, he shares many of the same views as Obama on many issues which is at odds with being an emo.

        As for expectations that Bernie should be crediting Obama on the actions of his that Bernie also supports, since this is a political campaign, candidates talk about where they are on the issues and what they would do. I haven’t heard Hillary credit Obama in all the positions she’s announced which are clearly a continuation of Obama’s policies. That’s the way it usually is, candidates want their policies identified with them, not someone else (like the current president).

        As to Bernie’s record of passed legislation, Obama wasn’t even in the Senate long enough to leave a long record of accomplishments there yet that wasn’t an issue to us in supporting him. Clearly, anyone who is a socialist and pursuing socialist and very Progressive policies is unlikely to get much passed through Congress if he stays true to those beliefs. It doesn’t mean that pols should stop fighting for liberal causes that face an improbable success and instead move to the middle just for the sake of getting bills passed.

        You mention Bernie’s neglect on racial issues but to be fair, what about Hillary and Bill’s very racially charged attacks on Obama in 2008? Rev. Wright and even dissing MLK’s contributions to civil rights? And many of Bill Clinton’s policies as President hammered African Americans the hardest. So, while I can’t tell you, because I don’t know enough on this issue yet with regards to Bernie, that he has given racial issues the focus they deserve, I can say that I would be quicker to criticize a candidate who has said some very negative things racially than one who hasn’t.

        As to Hillary being more focused, she has a huge war chest and a massive operation with a massive staff and has the experience of her previous and Bill’s two presidential campaigns to help her campaign look more focused. I don’t know the details of Bernie’s campaign staff but I would think it would be far smaller and less sophisticated. He doesn’t have all the policy people, think tanks, market research and speechwriters that Hillary has so I really haven’t expected him to look as crafted and detailed as she is. Even though he has raised a good deal of money, I get the feeling that his campaign is still a relatively small operation and like Hillary, he doesn’t have the time to do everything himself. So he may not have fully worked out all of the approaches to accomplish the goals he wants but I do think that the principles he addresses are genuine.

        You and I do agree that Hillary’s true intentions if she was to win the WH are not to be taken for granted from what she is currently stating. I do think that one thing Bernie’s presence in the race is doing, and his popularity, is forcing Hillary to recognize the Progressives and their positions in the Dem Party. It sure seems to be the reason she is suddenly espousing such liberal policies.

        Bill and Hillary have been DLCers, corporate Dems who are close with Wall Street and believe in their goals and serving them. When I look at these two candidates and which one should raise the most scrutiny with regards to the legitimacy of their campaign and talking points, Hillary Clinton is far and away the one I choose.

        At worst, if Bernie is just stating policies he supports that are Obama’s and is too general about how he would achieve their goals, I find that far less objectionable and troubling at this point in the campaign.

        As we get to the debates, then we will see if Bernie has specific approaches to lay out or if he repeatedly just decries injustices with no practical ideas on how to stop them.

        To be fair, I don’t think Hillary has given much in the way of details on her positions, how she will accomplish any of her policies. None of the Repubs, especially Trump, have offered any specifics on any of the issues they spout about.

        IMO, the Dem primary is far better off having Bernie in it than it just being a coronation for Hillary who then wouldn’t have any incentive to make campaign promises on Progressive issues, she could start running her GE campaign as a centrist from the beginning.

        • kesmarn says:

          Well stated, AdLib.

          One thing about Bernie’s position on civil rights that deserves mention I think, is the fact that a.) he was marching for civil rights when it was not a particularly popular — or even safe — thing to do, and b.) he connects the dots in the argument that what is morally sound in the economic arena is very likely to be beneficial to African American citizens.

          Is free college tuition going to be helpful to many African American families? You bet. Is raising the minimum wage going to make a difference in some African American households? I think so. Is paid sick leave going to be beneficial to African American workers? I would imagine. The list goes on and on.

          Also — maybe I missed it, but has Hillary put forth her position on the TPP Asian trade treaty? If she has, I must have missed it. Her silence on this and other issues is very worrying to me. Candidates who wait to see which way the wind blows before announcing positions don’t inspire confidence in me.

          Of course, if she is the candidate, I’ll vote for her. Whatever her faults, she’s light years beyond anyone in the GOP field.

          I’m also a little concerned about the tone of some of her “people.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t “PUMA” (in 2008) stand for: “Party Unity My Ass”? These were the hardcore Hillary supporters who were really willing to go to the mat for her — no holds barred. I think people are getting sick of take-no-prisoners politics. Bernie has been extremely gracious in the way he’s spoken about Hillary so far. And — although this is only anecdotal evidence — I haven’t heard any of his supporters getting really nasty about her. But I have heard — first hand — Hillary supporters who have sworn that they’ll stay home on election day rather than vote for Bernie Sanders.

          Are they really that enamored of the thought of President Scott Walker?

          And do we really need to form the circular firing squad this early in the game?

          I think Dems need to take a deep breath, ratchet down the anger level and keep the long game in mind. After all, it’s a strategy that’s worked pretty well for a guy named Barack Obama so far.

    • AdLib says:

      Hey Filo!

      Short and sweet but says it all!

    • Nirek says:

      Filo, you just spoke the truth! Bernie speaks truthfully and has a great agenda. Bernie’s message is that we can make all Americans better off without hurting anyone. The richest folks have been getting away without paying their fair share of taxes! Some corporations have taken money out of the treasury but not put any in! To me that is just WRONG!


      • filo says:

        I sent Bernie $50 when he announced. I will vote for him on any ballot. On the other hand, I will be pleasantly surprised if he beats Hillary. I supported Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern back in the day. I’ll be stunned if the country elects a Democratic Socialist.

      • choicelady says:

        Nirek -- his agenda is Obama’s accomplishments. I think Bernie is a fraud. I am bitterly disappointed in how superficial he is.

        • NirekJunior says:

          Bernie’s agenda goes farther than Obama’s, and I am not sure in what way he is superficial. Bernie has acknowledged what Obama has done and has been clear on what he thought Obama’s biggest mistake was -- namely not keeping together the movement that elected him to keep the pressure on. Bernie is representing a large swath of people who are fed up with the way politics works, and is drawing dedicated interest from people who have felt very much disinfranchised by one cookie-cutter politician after the next. I know this because I’m one of those people. I don’t want another Clinton in the White House, and sure as hell not another Bush. I don’t want another politician telling me what I want to hear only to more or less follow the status quo when they get in office. I want someone who isn’t afraid to say what so many think. I want someone who isn’t afraid to say “well I haven’t thought much about that issue, but here’s what makes sense to me.” I want a president that I can be proud of and who is beholden not to a few big corporate donors, but the millions of people who supported him/her. Is that idealistic? Probably, but I think we are better than what we’ve been, and I think having an honest politician in the highest office in the land is a good way to move forward. (It doesn’t hurt that Bernie’s agenda meshes very well with what Pope Francis has been saying, another man I greatly respect.) just my thoughts 🙂

  4. Nirek says:

    AdLib, this article is not your usual satire. You make excellent points about the candidate and her history. I believe she has been purchased! She now belongs to Monsanto and othe corporations like BIG banks.

    Bernie on the other hand, can’t be bought! He is not taking money from the corporations or the billionaires! To me that is the ethical way to run a grassroots campaign. Bernie is NOT beholding to corporations like Hillary is.

    Thanks Ad, for this article. #BernieCares

    • AdLib says:

      Nirek, it’s hard for me to imagine that she is serious about being willing to possibly put her own Wall Street contributors in jail. Or her husband’s Wall Street contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Or her daughter’s and son-in-law’s friends and former employers.

      This is Politics 101. In a Dem primary, run to the left then tack to the center in the GE. Hard to be confident of any conviction in such a politician who openly makes clear it is a strategy she is using, not long held beliefs.

      Again, I am not interested in hammering Hillary, we may very well need her to win in the GE and in such a case, I would vote for her without reservation. I just feel it’s important to speak out when one believes they see that the Empress has no clothes.

  5. NirekJunior says:

    Good article, and this is exactly why Bernie supporters are so invested in him -- a politician with ethics. (On par with a lawyer telling the truth, if you ask my father.) Hillary doesn’t mean what she says. She isn’t going to bite the hand (er…wallet) that feeds her. She is pandering in a most obvious fashion, and that tells me that even though she won’t mention her primary opponent, she is legit worried about the excitement Bernie is drawing from actual people, not corporations. Heck I am even strongly considering donating to a political campaign, something I never would have believed. Bernie is genuine though, his record proves it, the crowds sense it, and he may just get the political revolution he wants. #FeelTheBern

    • AdLib says:

      NIrekJunior, when a candidate leaks that she’s going to be campaigning as Progressive to block the path for true Progressives to surpass her, it is hard to put a lot of faith in her long term commitment to those positions.

      Bernie is the real deal, I don’t know realistically that he can beat Hillary but in a primary, we should be voting for the candidate that we most believe in and who knows what can happen?

    • Nirek says:

      Son, this is one of the many reasons I am so proud of you! #BernieCares

  6. sillylittleme says:

    Ad, On DKos today staunch Hillary supporters were going after Bernie supporters for pointing out that her corporate speak in a tweet reflects her true intent.

    I expect them to be much like the McCain supporters, two time losing candidate whiners. I hardly expect her to be able to follow through on her platform as she would have to sign legislation that overrides her husband’s signature.

    • funksands says:

      SLM, have you been as surprised as I have at the level of vitriol already being exhibited by supporters of Bernie and Hillary? I am.

      • sillylittleme says:

        Who knew Ds could be so vicious?

        It’s the “I want to see a woman president before I die” crowd vs the New Deal/Second Bill of Rights crowd.

        It saddens me, the other party is supposed to be the stupid party…

    • AdLib says:

      slm, I think it’s important to see the big picture on politicians. No doubt some of those Hillary supporters going after Bernie’s have wiped the slate clean from Hillary’s 2008 run. She is the same person who lied about being shot at on the Tarmac in Bosnia, attacked Obama in the primary using the racially charged Rev. Wright stuff and wanted to override the democratic process of the primary using Super Delegates.

      She has proven in the past that she will go to extreme lengths, saying and doing unethical things just to win. It is possible that she has changed but only time will tell.

      What she is doing is exactly what we heard would be her strategy, not her positions, her strategy to outflank those on her left. If this is just a strategy, then she may not be committed to these things and is just being manipulative. Bernie on the other hand has held these same positions for years. So while Hillary may have legitimately changed or adopted new positions, I’m quicker to believe in someone like Bernie who stood for these things when he had no Presidential campaign at stake.

      • sillylittleme says:

        Ad, I have no doubt that she would be a fine president but I too am putting my vote to good use with Bernie.

        I have followed a few senators over the years. The first one was Bernie.

        Being a resident of MA, it has been a given as to what bills our senators would put forth. I know you want to throw Brown out there, but I consider him a blip. By the way, my former representative in the House was Markey. He’s a real dynamo on the climate change issue.

        My current representative was my former state rep. She’s great on all issues except for legalization of marijuana so you would be correct if you assumed I voted against her more than once. MA republicans in my area have to be slightly left of center to win election.

  7. funksands says:

    Ad, while she did come out and say that she wouldn’t be in favor of Glass-Steagall re-appearing during her term in office (disappointing to say the least), I was gratified to hear her say how she’d be more than willing to jail actual people that have committed crimes in TBTF institutions.

    This would be a monumental improvement over the utterly shameful record of the Obama administration with regard to global financial criminal activity.

    There are very very few black marks on the Obama report card, this is absolutely one of them.

    Personally I would be pleasantly surprised, considering how cosy the Clintons are with the financial industry, but she definitely is saying things I want to hear!

    • choicelady says:

      Funk -- Glass-Steagall did one thing: it put the firewall between our money in our accounts and the money banks could use for their own investments. That’s it. And that’s what the Volcker Rule does in Dodd-Frank. It was adopted by the regulatory agencies in December 2013 and has begun reducing the amount of risk WE have no matter what the banks do.

      Obama has NO negative record -- once again, while we were all sleeping, the banks in the 90s and 2000s, made what they did LEGAL. What banks did that was not WAS prosecuted at the federal district court levels. But if anyone is to blame for 2008 it is the American people who just tuned out to the changes in the law. There is almost NOTHING -- and Krugman agrees -- that this administration could do. The time to act was under Bill and W -- and we paid no attention until it was too damned late. YOU can call it fraud -- but the vast majority of fraud was perpetrated by mortgage brokers who were unregulated, not by banks that bought the lousy loan paper. The brokers HAVE been prosecuted -- I get the notices from our US Attorney about what has happened to those craven brokers here in the Eastern District of CA.

      This is not on Obama for following the law. This is on us for letting it happen.

      • funksands says:

        Choice, I was not necessarily referring to pre-meltdown activities, nor the Volker Rule which goes into effect just this very month, (which therefore has not been reducing any risk of any kind)

        Nor was I referring to the untrue fact that what banks and people at those banks did pre-2007-8 wasn’t illegal per say.

        Nor was I referring to the Justice Dept and SEC almost 100% of the time simply acting as fine extractors rather than enforcement divisions.

        Rather I am referring to the actions of our justice dept in cases where clear and demonstrable fraud and crime of the most obvious and brazen led to no filing of charges against anyone nor any admission of wrongdoing.

        I would forgive an earnest effort that found itself up against the best attorney a bank could buy, and simply could not obtain a conviction. In some of the greyer cases, facts likely would have emerged that what happened wasn’t illegal but simply unethical. But even in the most obvious case, that attempt was not made.

        The HSBC case is simply the most absurd of the lot. Here is a bank that knowingly and aggressively laundered drug cartel and weapons trafficker money as a routine business model. They were caught red-handed helping North Korea and Iran avoid sanctions as well as laundering money for Al Queda and Hezbollah.

        You couldn’t make up situation like this in fiction, yet it was very real?

        The result?

        A $1.9 Billion fine -- This is equal to 5% of their annual profits
        A program of oversight and monitoring, that they have nelglected to comply with. The head of that division was reassigned after not cooperating with the DOJ
        A partial clawback of deferred compensation arrangements of executives at the firm

        Why wasn’t anyone prosecuted? Because according to Lanny Bruer “HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized.” Which is utter nonsense.

        Plenty of small fish are charged and convicted of money laundering all the time in the US, but not bankers and financiers at large institutions. They aren’t even charged.

        Loretta Lynch ignored whistleblower documents exposing additional tax fraud by HSBC and signed off on the deferred prosecution deal.

        Eric Holder said it best: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute – if we do bring a criminal charge – it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.”

        Now this (I think very honest and very telling) statement exposes many things on many levels.

        Don’t even get me started on Credit Suisse and BNP Paribas.

        Whether the kid gloves are a deliberate wholistic administrative approach to dealing with the powerful, yet ultimately fragile banking sector (my opinion) or simply a Justice Dept that feels it doesn’t have the firepower or will to tackle these behemoths (less likely) the end result is that individuals working at these firms have no fear of personal responsibility for their actions.

    • AdLib says:

      Funk, that’s the issue of concern for me.

      Did you watch Scott Walker’s announcement today that he’s running? He said everything and stated every position that the Tea Party wants to hear.

      Hillary’s speech was different in tone and style but did the same thing on Progressive issues.

      Both held very different positions on some of those issues before they started running.

      Whatever the case, I am voting for the Democrat for President which will likely be Hillary but we’re not there yet and I am concerned that Hillary is saying whatever it takes to win the primary at times.

      I criticize the RW for being very easily fooled by their pols when they’re just told what they want to hear so I try to weigh what Hillary says especially when it conflicts with her past positions and her own interests. I do agree though, if she is telling the truth, that would be fantastic and way overdue. I too have been very frustrated with the Obama Admin not prosecuting any Wall Street criminals (aside from one fall guy).

      • funksands says:

        Ad, I’m okay with that. Either she means what she is saying or she is forced to move her public positions leftward to appeal to the tone of the body of the party.

        The longer she is forced to make that accommodation (if that is what it is) the more likely these positions end up in the platform, then end up in the general and end up as policy.

        I’m very hopeful that Bernie can stay in the race for a significant period. If he can make it to just before the convention, I think that would be ideal.

        I do believe that Hillary is for the most part Obama part 2. Fairly liberal on social issues, rather orthodox on economic issues (unfortunately) and rather conservative on international issues. There are differences, and one of them is that Hillary strikes me as more of a political animal. That can be advantageous in a political fight, disadvantageous in holding the line against the Huns in Congress.

  8. Good points, all, Ad, but what does she mean if she is saying she’ll, “go after Wall Street?” Are those her exact words, or was she more specific in her promise?

    • AdLib says:

      KT, she said that on her watch, she wouldn’t let Wall Street bankers and companies get away with criminal actions but she stopped short from saying she would have them criminally prosecuted. So…left it a bit open as to what that meant. Hard to believe she would put her contributors in prison.

      • Well, that would imply that everyone who works on Wall Street is a criminal. I know it may sound incredibly naive to think there may be some law abiding goings on there, but there has to be some.

        I guess my question for Hillary would be, despite what the law actually says, what do YOU personally think criminal activity in the securities and exchange business really is? Insider trading? Default loans to people who can’t possibly pay them back? The selling of such loans to other financial institutions for a percentage of what’s been recovered?

        It’s all too vague at this point as to what she meant. Why hasn’t Obama pushed more for the arrest and prosecution of those criminal pricks who nearly collapsed our economy, not to mention Europe’s and Asia’s? Where has our “hero,” been in righting the wrongs of such blatantly criminal institutions?

        I look at Hillary this way. I don’t want another Clinton (or Bush) in the White House, but if it comes down to Hillary or Ted Cruz or Rick Perry or Marco Rubio or any other of those fucking fanatics, I would have to vote for Hillary. at least she seems to understand the concept of a village (community).

        I’ll reserve criticism of her, for now. I don’t give a crap about what she said about Bosnia, Benghazi, her vote to disarm Saddam of WMD (she, nor anybody else in congress voted for what we actually got) or much else that she is derided for. Once again, the American people are not going to be presented with any real choice here.

        Maybe Bernie will be able to pull off the nomination, but I have serious doubts about that, knowing our corrupt political system that we have to deal with.

        It’s like Lewis Black so famously said. When it comes to our presidential candidates, republican and democrat, the choice is between two bowls of shit, and it is up to us to determine which bowl of shit smells the worst.

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories