dagblog - Comments for "Two Clintons. 41 years. $3 billion."

There's an expression -

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:52:15 +0000

There's an expression - "little companies do business with little companies; big companies do business with big". Sanders has been working at a much more modest level than Clinton. This isn't absolute - Google arrived 15 years ago, Facebook 11, Twitter 9, not that startup business models necessarily translate directly to government. Obama was essentially a limber "startup", but he came into office tapped into big money interests, for better or worse. LBJ was certainly part of the establishment, though JFK's death gave him incentive & mandate to use his famous arm twisting for the better good.

There of course is a chance that Sanders could excite the populace enough to put him in, but once there, it's also a question of what levers he can pull to commandeer items like "campaign finance reform", "free state colleges and universities", or "a new Glass-Steagall" - presumably he needs the cooperation of Congress, where only a change of 13 House seats seems possible (in the Senate, maybe 4 could shift from D, but Harry Reid's could shift to R). "A repeal of past [trade deals]" possibly could be done by executive order, but it's questionable whether this Supreme Court would let that stand the way the 2002 court let Bush withdraw from the ABM - things are much more wacko and right-wing now.

So I'm quite skeptical that Bernie can achieve his points short of a full-scale congressional revolution (how?), & I'm not quite sure what "a truly clean green economy" would mean, vs. the current progressing shift to electric cars and renewable energy. Denial of fracking to produce more dependence on Mideast oil? That won't fly, at least this week. Big energy reform? Obama's Clean Power Plan? seems to be a show horse. Cap-and-trade? maybe we'll see some trade-offs, especially at state level.

The fact we didn't get

trkingmomoe — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 17:25:47 +0000

In reply to Obama did campaign on the

The fact we didn't get universal health care is the reason so many Democrats didn't show up to vote in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Sanders has lit a new fire under the progressive left. DNC will have trouble turning them out for Hillary. These are voters that can not be bought with high dollar commercials and polished wording from focus groups.

I have a real problem with

Ramona — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 15:33:29 +0000

In reply to You are right. Those

I have a real problem with big business financing political campaigns, too. I hate that Hillary, or any politician, takes money from them. If only it didn't cost so much to run a campaign. If only the Democrats had access to the same free media attention that, say, Donald Trump, has. If only Hillary didn't have the additional disadvantage of having to fight against everyone--the right, the left, and the media--in order to prove she's got what it takes to be president.

Presidential campaigns are horribly expensive. Bernie is riding on the populist bandwagon right now, pulling in funding in small quantities, and at the moment, it works for him. This is just the beginning. There will come a time when Bernie will have to consider other, bigger sources for funding his campaign. All of those sources will be looking for something in return for their support.

That's the way the game is played. This is the 21st Century, not the 19th. No one can become president by relying on grassroots funding to get there. It just won't happen.

You are right. Those

HSG — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 14:35:00 +0000

In reply to Think you mean "jaded". So

You are right. Those individuals who contribute to Bernie's campaign expect something back if he's elected. They expect a strong effort to implement, among other things, the following: 1) campaign finance reform, 2) higher taxes on the wealthy, 3) a rejection of future trade deals and a repeal of past ones, 4) a new Glass-Steagall, 5) no more private prisons, 6) free state colleges and universities, 7) a $15 minimum wage, 8) a truly clean green economy. Since I want all of those things too, I have no problem with Bernie's acceptance of many small contributions from grass-roots supporters.

I am very skeptical of the expectations lying behind contributions from big commercial and investment banks, pharmaceutical companies, the private prison industry, corporate law firms, the cable TV industry, casinos, and big Hollywood studios. Accordingly, I do have a problem with Hillary's eager cultivation of money from these special interest groups.

The word "tainted" is lifted

HSG — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 14:28:35 +0000

In reply to Think you mean "jaded". So

The word "tainted" is lifted directly from tmmcarthy's post. I agree the word "jaded" otherwise fits better in my reply. Thanks for the civility!

Great answer, Teri. I

Ramona — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 14:18:04 +0000

In reply to You are completely tainted by

Great answer, Teri. I completely agree. There are very few saints in real life, so we have to overlook faults in order to get along. That's what we do in civilized societies. We do expect more from politicians because they are government officials in whose hands our lives may rest. But to go after Hillary Clinton, pulling up every miniscule detail of her long political life, dragging out every comment, no matter the context, while somebody like Donald Trump is rising in the polls, gaining enough ground so there's a real chance he could be the Republican nominee--there's something dreadfully wrong with that picture.

Think you mean "jaded". So

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:57:00 +0000

In reply to Either I'm completely tainted

Think you mean "jaded". So that includes

1) Bernie Sanders - will do favors, lie or worse for people who are giving him money to do favors, lie or worse?

2) the Red Cross - will do favors, lie or worse for people who are giving them money to do favors, lie or worse?

People give a lot of money to Kickstarter and GoFundMe, seemingly to fund little interesting projects in doing just what they say they will do - no special favors, and in the case of non-delivery it's usually because delivering on projects is difficult, doubtfully a lie or scam in most cases.

Is the Clinton Foundation significantly different from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? People have complained about some of the Gates funding distorting say what the priorities and accepted diseases to fund in Africa, but that's typical when any large batch of money comes around.

Either I'm completely tainted

HSG — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:15:00 +0000

In reply to You are completely tainted by

Either I'm completely tainted or 1) people really do favors, up to and including lying or worse, for those who give them money and 2) people give money to those who will do them favors, up to and including lying or worse

You are completely tainted by

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 13:46:56 +0000

In reply to The most effective way to

You are completely tainted by your profession Hal. That is too bad. Your example up there, only applies in the confrontational world of lawyers. Out here in the regular real world we depend upon the ability to work with others and take them at their word until they prove otherwise in order to effectively make progress towards whatever we are trying to make progress towards. In our case, my job, we are trying to make more money to fund the ballet. We do that together as an organization and we don't judge people we just try to get them to donate, Republicans or Democrats, because lots of people love the Ballet. I have no idea how they vote.

I've felt for a long time, the reason our national legislature doesn't work, is because so many lawyers are congresscritters and all they know is confrontation. And that is the real reason progress is never made. And guess what, they all act the same way you do.. so assured of their righteousness...

We aren't jurors here, at Dag or generally in the world, we don't approach others even when they have differing opinions as though they are the enemy and at all costs they must be proven wrong. We don't think of the world in terms of hard choices. Don't get me wrong there are hard choices, but mostly, our lives are built on soft nuanced choices because that is the only way one can live in a community, be a part of the community. I get that you believe you are 100% correct about every assessment you make, and that if people would only listen to you..... The thing is, the rest of us do not and cannot function that way, I don't fight people every single day of my life, I don't go into a meeting or anything thinking the other person is my enemy and I must win. Ugh what a terrible life that would be. We work collaboratively and we believe in the honesty of others for the most part. This is how we are successful as organizations and individuals.

I'm still voting for Hillary.

Don't you think you've posted

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 13:01:26 +0000

In reply to "Plus profanity helps pace

Don't you think you've posted stupid shit about Hillary a few dozen times too often? Tell you what, you stop and I'll wash my mouth out with soap. Deal?

Meanwhile I posted a link to a Sept 2008 Hillary op-ed about mortgage reform and you didn't have fuck all to say about it. What gives? Not speculative enough? Doesn't fit your Hillary as wicked witch meme? Couldn't figure out how to psycho-analyze the words to make them playing the gender or race card? Happy to hear what Bernie did re bank mortgage fraud and defying the intent of the bank bailout with 0% loans to get the economy going. Looking forward to your insightful analysis of how this Op-ed relates to Hillary's non-committal to re-invoking Glass-Steagal and to the accusations that with all that Wall Street money Hillary won't do shit to rein in Wall Street. You claim you want to (or do) talk real issues - let's see it.