Don't Believe the Hype: Candidate Clinton's Sudden Populism

[WilliamPitt]

Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to reporters at a state launch party for her presidential campaign,
in Concord, New Hampshire, June 15, 2015. In spite of her use of populist rhetoric on the campaign
trail, Clinton's actions, history and friends in the financial industry tell a different story.
(Photo: Ian Thomas Jansen-Lonnquist/The New York Times)

Don't Believe the Hype: Candidate Clinton's Sudden Populism
By William Rivers Pitt
Truthout | Op-Ed

Tuesday 16 June 2015

Short of writing, following and studying the news is my primary profession; the latter nourishes the former. I swim in headlines, drown in text, and too often choke on nonsense. It's fascinating, but not fun ... and while much of the news these days makes me hedge the yawning chasm of despair, every once in a while a story will come along that quite simply makes me want to run my head through a plate glass window.

The Washington Post provided the latest example of pure, mind-bending awful. You've certainly heard by now that California is enduring the worst drought since God wore short pants. Governor Brown has initiated severe water rationing as a result, and according to the Post, the rich folks aren't taking it very well. "Rich Californians Balk at Limits: 'We're Not All Equal When It Comes to Water,'" reads the headline. The lawns and pools on their estates, their flower gardens and private golf courses, all will be affected.

"What are we supposed to do," said one aggrieved party, "just have dirt around our house on four acres?"

There you have it, friends. George Orwell - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - was a true prophet. In a state where the aquifers are almost empty, the water that's left has been tainted with fracking waste thanks to the profit motive, and the poverty-burdened migrant worker community which basically supports the state's economy only sees green when they work the fields or get their meager pay, the über-wealthy are worried about the lushness of their lawns.

Natch.

For reasons some may argue are not entirely fair, the Post article about those preposterous people helped crystallize a few things as I encompassed the rhetoric contained in Secretary Clinton's big campaign speech this past weekend. Despite her long history of association with these kinds of people, Mrs. Clinton on Saturday deployed the sort of populist bombast that one might have heard at an Occupy Wall Street rally not so long ago...

(snip)

The roll-call of Mrs. Clinton's top twenty campaign donors is topped by Citibank, and includes Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse Group ... basically, a cohort of the worst people in the United States, the ones who gamed the system by buying politicians like her and then proceeded to burn the economy down to dust and ash while making a financial killing in the process.

The hood ornament on President Obama's second term agenda, the positively nauseating Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and fast-track authority for same, has been much in the news of late. The deal was dealt a blow by Congress some days ago, but the argument is far from complete. Mrs. Clinton's silence on the topic is deeper than what one would hear in deep space. However, in her 2014 book Hard Choices, she positively waxed loquacious...

(snip)

Candidate Clinton's words over the weekend matched with chiseled precision the populist wave that has been washing over the country ever since those first few brave Occupy Wall Street souls sat down in Zuccotti Park, refused to budge, and re-introduced the nation to a dialogue which made them realize just how badly they've been getting screwed.

In my humble opinion, her actions, her history, and most importantly her friends in the financial industry, give glaring lie to this sudden eruption of populist fervor. She railed against all of the entities that are tearing the country to rags on Saturday, and then cashed their checks when her pals at the bank opened for business on Monday. That is the sharp truth of it, and all the YEAH BUT REPUBLICANS arguments can go pound sand. When Secretary Clinton and the most terrifying GOP candidates on the skin of the Earth share the same donor list, the (D) after her name doesn't matter a dime.

The rest: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31397-don-t-believe-the-hype-candidate-clinton-s-sudden-populism

[leftofcool]

1. Too bad she is the Democratic front runner, eh?

[hobbit709]

3. She was the front runner a year out before too.

How did that turn out?

[hobbit709]

186. You actually signed on just for this unwitty remark?

[WilliamPitt]

4. Oddest sig line I've ever seen.

[leftofcool]

12. I have no doubt you think so.

[morningfog]

27. It's especially odd since so many here claim that her opinions as Sec. State were not her own

but Obama's.

[progree]

50. Ding Ding Ding! We have a thread winner

[Divernan]

51. Bazinga!

[shaayecanaan]

172. Especially when it wasn't a very good moment for Hillary

the translator fucked up the question slightly and she proceeded to bite off some Congolese woman's head. The crowd were murmuring because they weren't sure why Clinton was yelling at them for asking a perfectly innocent question.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6011874/Hillary-Clinton-my-husband-Bill-Clinton-is-not-secretary-of-state.html

[passiveporcupine]

181. OMG

"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the Secretary of State, I am. You ask my opinion. I will tell you my opinion; I'm not going to channel my husband."

She certainly doesn't have Obama's class. I think even blunt and honest Bernie would have handled this better. This sounds not only defensive, but pompous.

[Octafish]

6. Do you worry she may have peaked too soon?

That Washington Post-ABC poll a couple weeks back said only 41-percent of the electorate finds her honest and trustworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-2016-republicans-tightly-bunched-clintons-image-erodes/2015/06/01/9e9c26c6-0893-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html?postshare=6961433243035238

What can the campaign do to change the momentum?

[Scootaloo]

159. Specifically she peaked sometime around December 2007

[cali]

7. if one actually cares about these issues, yes it is.

I know that you and quite a few others think that these aren't important issues and that liberalism is strictly defined only by social justice issues. Under that definition, a democrat can be as hawkish and corporate agenda supporting as a republican but still be considered a liberal.

For some of us liberalism means support for civil rights and social justice issues and a rejection of hawkish policy in national defense and foreign policy as well as support for reining in corporate influence and power and support for a more equitable economic environment and strong support for poverty issues.

[BeanMusical]

26. +1

[leveymg]

29. Some of them positively relish the prospect of further regime changes and wars to come.

"Real men do Tehran" was the neocon saying during the Bush Administration. Applies just as well today to neocons and chickenhawks in both parties, of whom Hillary is the leader of the "obliterate Iran" faction in this Party. Her words:

[shaayecanaan]

171. Batshit insanity

Even the Republicans are generally not so reckless as to launch hypothetical nuclear strikes on other countries to score a few more votes on the campaign trail.

Imagine if Iran did launch a nuclear attack on Israel. Quite feasibly the missile could miss and land in the ocean. The warhead could "fizzle" (wikipedia it). Both outcomes are quite possible given the state of Iranian technology.

Would Clinton still obliterate Iran? Well, she said she would. Bear in mind that there are 10,000 Jews still residing in Iran. What Clinton is proposing would be the greatest slaughter of Jews since Hitler.

[leveymg]

182. She seems to be unaware that Israel has it's own nuclear umbrella, and hardly needs ours.

Our nukes would, as Churchill put it, merely make the "rubble bounce."

That makes this an empty threat (and an unnecessary one), from a strategic standpoint, but it's a real indicator of what goes on in her own mind. A scary place. She lacks the steady, realistic temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

[leveymg]

198. McCain is nuts. n/t

[Scuba]

95. + another

[Marr]

107. +1

[stage left]

129. That's what Liberalism means to me.

Social justice and economic justice. Why can't we have both?

[Eleanors38]

152. Yes. One needs no greater authority then Teddy Roosevelt.

[frylock]

28. Just the kind of insight we've all come to expect from you.

[Snotcicles]

32. +1. nt

[leftofcool]

35. Thank you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. Absolutely correct.

It is too bad. Too bad for us, too bad for the Party, and too bad for the country.

[arcane1]

92. Yes, it is too bad. We could do so much better n/t

[Marr]

111. So basically, your only concern is Hillary. Everything and everyone else can go to hell. /nt

[Doctor_J]

125. it is indeed too bad for America

When the more liberal of the two parties nominates a corporate water carrier, anyone should be able to tell that that's not good news.

[rhett o rick]

144. Gloat if you must but there is a way of populism that won't be stopped. The billionaires

may buy this election for her but they can't stop the movement. The 99% will win eventually against the Plutocratic-Oligarchy.

Don't be on the wrong side of this class war.

[roguevalley]

148. this article says it all for me. You can mark the date she suddenly decided to care

about the little people.

[sabrina 1]

156. For now ..

[cui bono]

162. That's what some DU OP headlines say these days.

[Old Codger]

168. Hopefully

A temporary condition soon to be remedied

[marmar]

2. I'm certainly not .....

..... We've seen this movie before.

[Autumn]

5. Hillary's record is there for all to see. Her history can't be wiped out by some pretty words she

speaks on the campaign trail. I like her but her time has come and gone. We can not afford another 4 or 8 years of corporate rule via paid politicians as usual. No more.

[SusanCalvin]

94. There you go. nt

[Jester Messiah]

100. Word. [nt]

[marym625]

8. K&R

I honestly believe that the Republicans and corpocracy want Jebbro to run against Clinton because they win either way.

Great piece, William. Thank you for not making me cry with this one

[Dustlawyer]

36. The Plutocrats prefer a Democrat in the White House.

They can always get the Repugs to go along on things like TPP, but with a Repug President the Dems would be a much stronger opposition. With a Democrat as President they can pull more Dems along and reduce/weaken the opposition.

[Alkene]

48. I learned from the Clinton administration...

that a neo-liberal in the white house allows, encourages and even requires liberal voices to stand down. Relax, we've taken charge and have you covered was just code for, resistance is futile.

[bvar22]

137. The "two" Parties have been "tag teaming" since Reagan.

Republican in Office = Run up the debt, restrict Constitutional Rights, bust Unions,
drive down wages and benefits.

Democrat in Office = consolidate and co-sign Republican Gains & crimes, start undoing some of the New Deal/Great Society Programs that ONLY a Democrat can undo.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat

[sabrina 1]

178. True, but that's changing. The people are rising up against them now. See what just happened

in Congress. It's not as easy as it used to be. They thought that Obama could get passed what Bush could not. They didn't realize that just because we supported him while he sounded like a progressive, that support would not help him pass their policies when it is so clear how harmful that would be for this country.

[marym625]

200. hmm.

Makes sense!

[merrily]

207. Not any Democrat. A New Democrat.

I think it can depend on what they want to get done, though.

[Jester Messiah]

102. Well, it's like tic-tac-toe.

You try to engineer it such that you win "both ways."

[marym625]

201. yep.

And they have a perfect candidate

[samsingh]

9. everything she is saying is fantastic - even if we get half of them

we will see another camelot rise out of the bushies ashes - Obama has done some good, but we still have a long way to go.

and Obama's stand on TPP is very disconcerting.

[jwirr]

73. It is not so much what the president (Clinton or Obama) do on the social issues. It is what they do

in the economic field that matters. And yes a short Camelot does us no good if the banksters and corporations are not regulated. All Hillary said about that was it wasn't fair that the CEOs made more than we do. She did not talk about what she was going to do about that.

[mmonk]

10. Worthy of a Facebook post. You'll see it soon.

Good work.

[antigop]

11. YES!! THANK YOU, WILLIAM! nt

[mother earth]

108. I join you in that gratitude, K & R. nt

[JaneyVee]

13. Sudden populism?

Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes.

"Let’s finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart. The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation’s wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let’s close that gap. Let’s start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas."-Hillary Clinton 2005

[marmar]

16. Then she went right out and voted for the bank bailout bill ...........

...... the biggest corporate welfare grab in history.

[JaneyVee]

23. Sudden populism...

Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging.

"So many of us grew up with what I call the basic bargain: If you worked hard and if you played by rules you’d be able to build a better life for yourself and your family. Well, I don’t think in the last six years our country has actually been living up to that basic bargain. The leadership here in Washington seems to ignore middle class and hardworking families across our country. Under this president’s leadership household debt has soared, healthcare costs have skyrocketed, assuming that you have it. Wages have remained stagnant. Now corporate profits are up. And productivity is up, which means Americans are working harder than anybody in the world, but we’re not getting rewarded. I’ll tell you who is getting rewarded. Companies like Halliburton are getting rewarded with no-bid contracts, then they move their CEOs across the ocean to another country and leave us hanging right here at home."-Hillary Clinton 2006

[marmar]

25. The record ............

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

[geardaddy]

134. Thank you!

This needs to be its own OP!

[AtomicKitten]

139. She voted to block transfer of Guantanamo detainees.

This one in particular pisses me off endlessly.

July 19, 2007 Bar transfer of Guantanamo detainees to America Agreed to, 94-3

Bernie: Allow transfer of Guantanamo detainees

Hillary: Block transfer of Guantanamo detainees

[Eleanors38]

153. "Sudden Onset Populism:" Sounds like a disease! ©.

[donf]

20. If her populism were more than politically expedient rhetoric

Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse Group would working tirelessly to defeat her, rather than funding her campaign!

How is it possible for so many intelligent people to be so willfully blind?

[JaneyVee]

24. They donate to every campaign. Newsflash!:

Democrats work at those companies too.

[donf]

44. How much money of those companies donated to Bernie Sanders' campaign?

I checked open secrets.org just to be sure:
$0.

Just because Democrats work at those companies, doesn't mean those companies work in the interest of the American people.

[C Moon]

98. +1

[Damansarajaya]

118. Well done.

"It's not who you think you are, it's not who you say you are. It's what you do that matters."

[L0oniX]

166. Traitors ...all. Dirty filthy money ...forcefully extracted from us with the help of _________!

Keep trying.

[jeff47]

57. Which is why she did not run a populist campaign in 2008.

She feels so deeply about it that it wasn't part of her 2008 campaign. Even when her lack of populism was costing her primaries against "Hope and Change".

[sabrina 1]

179. First thing she needs to do to get that started is to refuse Corporate donations, as Bernie Sanders

is doing. Because you don't get 2.5 billion dollars with no strings attached.

Otherwise it's just words, and if we've learned on thing over the past decade and a half, it is to watch they DO, not what they SAY.

Bernie won't take their money. That is why he is so free to speak his mind, to call them out, to promise to break up the big banks etc. If was taking their money, he would have to be careful about saying things like that.

[JaneyVee]

14. Sudden populism?

Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts.

"I believe that the foundation of a strong economy doesn’t begin with giving people who are already privileged and wealthy even more benefits. I think it comes from shared prosperity.

Let’s start by cleaning up the government, replacing this culture of corruption and cronyism with a culture of competence and caring again. Let’s stop outsourcing critical government functions to private companies that overcharge and underperform! Let’s close the revolving door between government and the lobbying shop, and let’s end the no-bid contracts for Halliburton and the other well-connected companies!

And how about the radical idea of appointing people who are actually qualified for the positions that we ask them to hold for us! Well, when I’m president, the entrance to the White House will no longer be a revolving door for the well connected, but a door of opportunity for the well qualified."-Hillary Clinton 2007

[donf]

15. Brilliant, incisive

and, unfortunately, completely accurate. This message needs to be spread far and wide - especially the last line of the piece!

God help us if Democratic voters allow themselves to be fooled again!

[JaneyVee]

17. Sudden populism?

Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s.

In the 1980s, Hillary Clinton had overheard a conversation between her husband and a Japanese executive. "You could do a lot to stimulate your economy," the executive told Clinton, "if your executives in American industry weren't so greedy." Her husband replied that American executives were being given permission to grab the most at the top by Reagan economic policies, which were designed so wealth would allegedly trickle down to those at the bottom. But those at the bottom weren't seeing the benefits. Hillary agreed. She was angry at what she called "the unacceptable acquiescence in greed that had occurred during the 1980s."-Hillary Clinton 1994

[Enthusiast]

21. Has she suggested raising taxes on the ultra wealthy?

[-none]

68. You're kidding, correct?

That would undermine the whole concept or our "Greatest Nation" construct. The rich paying taxes? They need that money to create jobs

Never mind those jobs pay minimum wage or less and only apply to their hired help.

[Enthusiast]

69. That's what I figured.

[hedda_foil]

31. Janet, dear, could you please link to where these speeches are found? Thank you very much. nt.

[yikes1]

61. sudden populism

You are kidding right? Hillary is a Reagan republican. Please if you like her fine, but please stop about her false populism. If Bernie had not come along these would not be her issues. Follow the money!!

[arcane1]

93. I see you're posting a lot of her words in this thread, but not her actions n/t

[GoneOffShore]

173. I would refer you to this:

And this:

[JaneyVee]

18. Sudden populism?

Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.Amendment to repeal the tax subsidy for certain domestic companies which move manufacturing operations and American jobs offshore.-Hillary Clinton 2005

[morningfog]

30. You should attribute the source from which you are gleaning all these excerpts.

[JaneyVee]

19. More sudden populism...

Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisibleQ: Overall, is Wal-Mart a good thing or a bad thing for the United States of America?

A: "Well, it’s a mixed blessing. When Wal-Mart started, it brought goods into rural areas, like rural Arkansas where I was happy to live for 18 years, and gave people a chance to stretch their dollar further. As they grew much bigger, though, they have raised serious questions about the responsibility of corporations & how they need to be a leader when it comes to providing health care & having safe working conditions and not discriminating on the basis of sex or race. This is all part, though, of how this administration and corporate America today don’t see middle class and working Americans. They are invisible. They don’t understand that if you’re a family that can’t get health care, you are really hurting. But to the corporate elite and to the White House, you’re invisible. So we need to get both public sector and private sector leadership to start stepping up and being responsible and taking care of people."-Hillary Clinton 2006

[WilliamPitt]

22. Words are wind.

Hillary Clinton Feels Heat Over Wal-Mart Ties
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0312-01.htm

...2006 again, FYI.

[stonecutter357]

45. .

[LordGlenconner]

33. I look forward to Pitt's dramatic, "Rally to Hillary's side" piece in November

[leftofcool]

38. I bet it will be well worded.

[Autumn]

39. I can't wait to see Wills "Rally to Bernie's side" piece in November

or sooner, when Hillary drops out. Yeah, it's coming.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Another day, another Hillary Clinton Whipping Post thread

eom

[WilliamPitt]

40. Defend your opinion.

I offered mine.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. My opinion is Hillary Clinton has always been in the main stream of the

My opinion is Hillary Clinton has always been in the main stream of the Democratic party and that's why over 80% of rank and file Democrats have a favorable opinion of her:




and 87% of African American and 74% of Latino Democrats have a favorable opinion of her:









To quote the great Sid Dithers she has always been loathed by the right and the fringe left.

[WilliamPitt]

53. "the great SidDithers"

I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the sink of your own opinions.

Enjoy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. He is our norther neighbor's H. L. Mencken and Will Rogers wrapped into one./NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. LoZoccolo was from Chicago and that's an incredibly mean thing to say about a poster here.

eom

[JonLP24]

89. Incredibly mean?

I doubt he's hurt by it but either way I stand by it.

You made a comparison to great comedians -- one of who gave birth to the phrase "tickle-down economics" -- "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy." - Will Rogers.

I made a comparison to a hit-and-run poster.

[Rex]

124. You are probably right.

Thought that myself for many years.

[LondonReign2]

127. Who says nothing, ever

[DemocratSinceBirth]

128. It was a facetious comment./NT

[Rex]

122. Well that did it for me.

Amazing how a little group here is trying so desperately hard to put 'one man' on a pedestal.

[totodeinhere]

66. There are polls and then there are polls.

Clinton favorability hits 7-year low.

Clinton’s favorability ratings are the lowest in a Post-ABC poll since April 2008, when she was running for president the first time. Today, 41 percent of Americans say she is honest and trustworthy, compared with 52 percent who say she is not — a 22-point swing in the past year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-2016-republicans-tightly-bunched-clintons-image-erodes/2015/06/01/9e9c26c6-0893-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html

Yes this poll covers everybody, not just Democrats. But in the general election everybody will vote, not just Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. Yet she still leads all her presumptive Republican opponents

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

[totodeinhere]

74. Without matching up Sanders vs those same Republicans those results are

meaningless. And she is within the margin of error is several different polls vs some of those Republicans. It's a rather weak performance I would say.

[leftofcool]

78. How does Sanders match up to those same Republicans?

I haven't seen any polls.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. We have results from Pennsylvania where HRC is beating Walker by 2 while Sanders is trailing him...

We have results from Pennsylvania where HRC is beating Walker by 2 while Sanders is trailing him by 10.

Clinton may not be polling great against the Republicans in Ohio but there's still a huge gap between how she fares and how any other Democrat does in a general election match up. In match ups against Scott Walker, Bloomberg trails 40/32, Sanders 40/30, O'Malley 41/26, Chafee 39/24, and Webb 41/25.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/kasich-leads-field-in-ohio.html#more

And prospective Democratic primary voters aren't nearly as sanguine about Bernie Sanders chances in the general election as they are about Hillary Clinton's chances:

Sanders and O’Malley have officially announced their candidacies, but most Democrats feel they
wouldn’t have as much of a chance as Clinton in defeating the eventual Republican nominee next year.
In fact, 6-in-10 Democratic voters say that Sanders (59%) and O’Malley (60%) would have a worse
chance than Clinton in the general election. Only about 1-in-4 say Sanders would have either as good a
shot (15%) or better (13%) than Clinton. And a similar number say O’Malley would have either as good
a shot (15%) or better (8%).

http://tinyurl.com/negmq8h

It's a rather weak performance I would say.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
-
-John Adams

[totodeinhere]

133. With Clinton's almost unanimous name recognition I would say that being within the margin

of error against Walker in PA is really scary. And as more people get to know Bernie his numbers will have nowhere to go but up. We are very politically aware in this forum but a lot of everyday Democrats haven't even heard of Sanders, as hard as that is to beleive. Yes I guess you could call that a negative for him and he has got to work on that. And he is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

136. I suggest you try to convince those Democrats...

I suggest you try to convince those Democrats who believe by a 4-1 margin that HRC would be the stronger general election candidate that they are wrong:


Sanders and O’Malley have officially announced their candidacies, but most Democrats feel they
wouldn’t have as much of a chance as Clinton in defeating the eventual Republican nominee next year.
In fact, 6-in-10 Democratic voters say that Sanders (59%) and O’Malley (60%) would have a worse
chance than Clinton in the general election. Only about 1-in-4 say Sanders would have either as good a
shot (15%) or better (13%) than Clinton. And a similar number say O’Malley would have either as good
a shot (15%) or better (8%).


http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/d4823715-88e1-49f5-bd3d-f82581d0c338.pdf

[totodeinhere]

149. They are just showing their ignorance. I wonder how many of them have even heard about

the solid blue wall in the Electoral College. Any Republican would have a difficult time beating any major Democratic candidate. And that being said why not go for the real thing? There is no doubt where Bernie Sanders stands. They same cannot be said for Hillary Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

150. The reliable Democratic states that give the Democrats an Electoral College edge...

The reliable Democratic states that give the Democrats an Electoral College edge... It is real and I cite it all the time. However there is a caveat; the Democratic edge in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio is much smaller than the edge in states like California and New York. That's worth heeding.

[magical thyme]

101. how convenient to stop at April, right when she launched. Here's her latest favorability:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

Pollster Trend

Unfavorable48.9%
Favorable45.8%


Pollster
Dates
Pop.
Favorable
Unfavorable
Undecided
Margin

YouGov/Economist
6/6 - 6/8
1,000 A
45
50
5
Unfavorable +5

YouGov/Economist
5/30 - 6/1
1,000 A
47
49
4

Unfavorable +2

CNN
5/29 - 5/31
1,025 A
46
50
3
Unfavorable +4


ABC/Post
5/28 - 5/31
1,001 A
45
49
6
Unfavorable +4

Quinnipiac
5/19 - 5/26
856 RV
45
47
-
Unfavorable +2



YouGov/Economist
5/23 - 5/25
1,000 A
47
47
7
-

YouGov/Economist
5/16 - 5/18
1,000 A
47
47
5
-


FOX
5/9 - 5/12
1,006 RV
45
49
5
Unfavorable +4



YouGov/Economist
5/9 - 5/11
1,000 A
48
49
4
Unfavorable +1



Gallup
5/6 - 5/10
1,024 A
50
46
4
Favorable +4




Hillary Clinton unfavorable numbers highest in 14 years
By Nick Gass
6/2/15 7:11 AM EDT
|Updated 6/2/15 9:39 AM EDT

Hillary Clinton is seeing her highest unfavorability ratings in 14 years, according to the latest CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday.

Just 46 percent said they view the Democratic presidential front-runner favorably, compared to 50 percent who said they have an unfavorable view. In the preceding April survey, Clinton polled with 53 percent favorable, compared to 44 percent unfavorable.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-hillary-clinton-unfavorable-numbers-118532.html#ixzz3dFHThtQf

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. I was referring to her favorability rating among Democrats.

I was referring to her favorability rating among Democrats. What part of that don't you understand?



Here's the latest PPP poll where her favorability/unfavorability rating among Democrats is 77%/18%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_61615.pdf


PG 31

[magical thyme]

109. last time I looked, republicans and independents will be voting too.

You are aware of that, right?

The more she's out there, the more her favorability drops.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. Last time I looked she is polling much better against them than her Democratic rivals:

Clinton leads Jeb Bush and Chris Christie each by 4 at 45/41, Scott Walker by 4 as well at 46/42, has a 5 point advantage over Mike Huckabee at 47/42, is up 6 on Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz at 46/40 and 48/42 respectively, and has a 7 point edge over Rand Paul at 47/40. Clinton's 3 to 7 point lead range is comparable to our April poll when she led by 3 to 9 points, but down from February when we found her leading the GOP hopefuls by 7 to 10 points.

Clinton continues to be a far superior general election candidate to any of the other Democratic hopefuls. Scott Walker would lead Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders each by 8 at 39/31 and 40/32 respectively, Jim Webb by 11 at 39/28, and Lincoln Chafee by 12 at 39/27.


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/walker-bush-rubio-lead-gop-field-clinton-still-dominant.html

[magical thyme]

126. and back in April she was up +7 over Bush, +5 over Christie and Walker, +7 over Cruz

but at least she's holding steady at +5 over Huckabee.


45 - 40 percent over Christie;
46 - 42 percent over Paul;
47 - 42 percent over former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee;
46 - 39 percent over Bush;
46 - 41 percent over Walker;
48 - 41 percent over U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2221

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. Which is substantially better than her Democratic primary rivals are doing...

Barack Obama beat John McCain by only six points after his party almost drove us into a depression and blew up the Middle East.

The dirty secret of politics is ninety percent of Americans or more have already decided which party they are going to vote for president and the next seventeen months will be fought over which party gets what's left of the ten percent.

[cui bono]

163. Last I looked Bernie was further behind Hillary than he is today.

Because every day he's getting closer and closer.

FEEL THE BERN!!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

165. Like this

Bernie Sanders may be gaining momentum in recent New Hampshire polling but Hillary Clinton is more dominant than ever in the national polling. She's at 65% to 9% for Bernie Sanders, 5% for Martin O'Malley, and 4% each for Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb. Sanders is the most common second choice of Democratic voters at 19% and O'Malley has broken away from Chafee and Webb to become the clear third choice of primary voters at 12%. Overall Clinton is the first or second choice of 73% of Democrats to 28% for Sanders, 17% for O'Malley, 8% for Chafee, and 7% for Webb.


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/polls/

[swilton]

161. You obviously have command of polling data

but I also think that there will be an unknown - Sanders appeal crosses party lines....Ralph Nader predicted this in his 2014 book UNSTOPPABLE which suggests a populist merger of the left and right over issues of interest to both groups such as the income inequality, jobs, reigning the military, etc. Evidence of this is the overwhelming turn-out at his presentations.

Furthermore, Greider argues that the traditional Democrats that Hillary has command of are now the Old Guard, her husbands staff and these are whom she is going to for economic policy.....why she is vague on answering questions. Her appeal is diminishing compared to Sanders.

[Scootaloo]

160. So is Rahm Emmanuel.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

197. Welcome To D U. Enjoy your stay./NT

[leveymg]

43. Another day, another Administration, another opportunity to "obliterate Iran"

Her words:

[Maedhros]

96. And hopefully there will be one every day until the primary.

Many of us do not want to see Hillary become President, and so we post articles and essays to that end.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. I trust they will continue after her inauguration

[Maedhros]

110. Probably. I have no tolerance for bullshit from Presidents. [n/t]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. I expect it. /NT

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

117. Someone will give her tickets to the inauguration

But she will not be inaugurated herself.

[BeanMusical]

37. Great article.

Just read the whole thing on Truthout before coming here.

[marions ghost]

41. I haven't ever believed it

[cantbeserious]

42. I Will No Longer Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[stonecutter357]

46. Clickbait.

[rocktivity]

54. You're right -- since he's the author

Will is perfectly free to post the entire thing here!


rocktivity

[WillyT]

49. K & R !!!

[99Forever]

52. Excellent piece, Mr Pitt. N/T

[antigop]

120. yes, it is! nt

[Cryptoad]

56. Negative attacks against HRC are defeating Bernie

They why he all but begged for it to stop!

[Fred Sanders]

59. Attacked a week ago for not being populist enough, attacked this week for 'faking' populism?

The Clintons have seen this dull and boring routine so many times before, no doubt they do not even want to be informed of this new and freshly reeking B.S. loaded into the B.S. catapult.

Attack the messenger.....ad hominems....BEGIN!

[leftofcool]

79. Clintons can't win for losing.

[cali]

81. fail. she's consistently been attacked for being a "weather vane" and for political expediency

her "populism" consists more of verbal crumbs than record. Her close ties with Wall Street and corporate CEOs are facts.

Here is fact:

Money equals access. Access equal influence. That is damned provable. And it's insane to think she's the exception.

[rocktivity]

62. It's a replay of her "McCain and I have experience, Obama has a speech" gaffe

If we should have picked her over Obama because she has more experience, shouldn't we have picked McCain over her because HE has more experience?

Refusing to take a stand on TPP until the deal is done doesn't help her -- it tacitly puts in in favor of a deal being done, and it begs the question of whether she thinks a deal SHOULD be done!


rocktivity

[JonLP24]

87. I think her stand is clear on TPP

"No president would be a tougher negotiator on behalf of American workers, either with our trade partners or Republicans on Capitol Hill, than I would be," Clinton said.

So she wants House Democrats to oppose TPP until she gets there.

[rocktivity]

90. I worked in advertising -- we called that a parity claim

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2015, 01:51 PM - Edit history (2)

No president would be tougher than her on trade? How can she possibly know that?

"I want House Democrats to oppose/support TPP until I get there because..." is a clear position on TPP.


rocktivity

[BlueJazz]

63. My Goodnish graces, By Golly!..We're going to take back 10 percent of what the Bankers stole!!

[upaloopa]

64. You are wrong about Hillary.

So many think they know her but they don't.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

105. "So many think they know her but they don't."

Yeah, which is why they're planning to vote for her.

[Nitram]

65. Clinton has always been a populist.

When she tried to create a better health insurance system it wasn't to benefit corporations.

[merrily]

83. Not so fast. Do some research. During the Nixon administration,

the health care plan being bandied about had an employer mandate (and no individual mandate).

That alarmed some Wyoming conservatives so much, they developed their own plan, one with an individual mandate. Their plan became the Heritage Foundation plan. The Heritage Foundation plan was the one Bill and Hillary used as their model. Then, Romney modeled Romneycare on Billarycare.

See also Reply 77.

Also, in 2008, while Obama was campaigning on no individual mandate and a strong public option, she was campaigning on an individual mandate. Granted, by the time Obamacare cleared the lobbyists, we got an individual mandate and a weaker public option than most of us would like. However, at least he had a populist vision.

[Nitram]

145. I believe you are mistaken. The Heritage Foundation Plan was formed to counter Clinton's plan...

...because they thought it would be too socialistic and not market-based. From wikipedia:

Conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry proceeded to campaign against the plan, criticizing it as being overly bureaucratic and restrictive of patient choice: The conservative Heritage Foundation argued that "the Clinton Administration is imposing a top-down, command-and-control system of global budgets and premium caps, a superintending National Health Board and a vast system of government sponsored regional alliances, along with a panoply of advisory boards, panels, and councils, interlaced with the expanded operations of the agencies of Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor, issuing innumerable rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards."[8]

[Nitram]

146. What's with the unfair pot shots against Democratic candidates on DU?

Let's stick to the platforms and policies being put forth by each candidate. Leave the attacks to the GOP.

[merrily]

175. Heritage foundation plans 1989 AND 1994. Obviously, the 1989 plan, with its individual mandate,

was not a reaction to Billarycare, but vice versa.

Seriously, do you think I made up a group of conservatives in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, who were so chagrined by the Nixon era plan that they came up with the individual mandate, which the Heritage Foundation later embraced? Or do you think I found out about that while doing research on the history of national health care plans? As I said, do some research.

[Nitram]

188. Still wrong. Check out the facts. Hillarycare was not Obamacare. And it was not for the 1%.

“In 1993, in fighting ‘Hillarycare,’ virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do,” Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said at a debate in December, casting his past support of a mandate as an antidote to the health care overhaul proposed by Hillary Rodham Clinton during her husband’s administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html

Heritage's Stuart Butler offers his own account. But crucial elements of it are at variance with the facts. Here is the key paragraph:

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204369404577211161144786448

[merrily]

190. It was a precursor of both Romneycare and Obamacare. I never said they were all identical.

Neat move of the goal post, though.

[Nitram]

193. Pointing out that Hillary's health care plan was not based on the Heritage Foundation proposal...

is "moving the goal posts?" That's a self-serving and slanderous suggestion. You wrote, "The Heritage Foundation plan was the one Bill and Hillary used as their model. " I have provided proof that no one saw it that way at the time or later. Your Hillary-phobia is getting in the way of clear thinking.

[merrily]

196. No, your quotes did not prove Heritage was not the model.

The Gingrich quote proves nothing at all. The Butler quote, made many years after the fact, is clearly wrong. The 1989 plan simply could not have been a response to a plan the Clintons proposed in 1993. That should have been evident on its face, due to chronology alone, but here's a link that dissects Butler's claim, made long after the fact.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204369404577211161144786448

As for your personal insults and claims of slander, LOL!

[Nitram]

203. OK, I get it. You just can't admit you're wrong.

And that when you're wrong you accuse the one who tried to set you straight with dishonesty (moving the goal posts). Anyway, now that I know where you're coming from, I'll know what to expect next time.

[merrily]

204. Poster, please. You're the one who's been proven wrong. And I"ve already LOL'd at

your personal insults once. You're very kind to keep me laughing, though.

[DanTex]

67. Translation: the Hillary-hate is personal and irrational. It doesn't matter what she actually

says or does or stands for. The Hillary-bashing will march on.

[harun]

72. The only things she has done benefit the 1%, why would we care what she says?

[DanTex]

76. For example, when she fought for universal healthcare. Obviously that was

for the 1%.

It's kinda odd how personal animosity can completely trump any regard for facts.

[merrily]

77. Heritage Foundation plan--and the Clintons couldn't get it passed. The way she had gone about it

just pissed off Democrats in the House and Senate.

[Thinkingabout]

103. Do you have health insurance?

[merrily]

176. Whether I do or not is totally irrelevant to anything I posted and, really, none of your business.

Trying to pretend that the individual mandate or the Heritage Foundation or Hillary's pissing off Democrats, the content of my post to which you purport to be replying, has something to do with my personal insurance situation is downright bizarre.

[Nitram]

147. Wrong! The Heritage Foundation Plan was to counter Clinton's plan

I don't know where you got the idea that Clinton's plans is equivalent to the Heritage foundation Plan, but you couldn't be more wrong about that.

[merrily]

174. See Replies 83 and 145.

[BrotherIvan]

84. That's why no one should listen to those who call any criticism of her "hate"

This is opinion, not hatred. This is building an argument based on historical evidence. If you can draw a different argument, go ahead and do it. But the constant refrain of "smear" and "hate" accomplishes nothing. And will accomplish nothing.

[DanTex]

86. It's an opinion grounded in irrational hatred.

[BrotherIvan]

91. That is exactly what I'm talking about

The same was said of any criticism of Obama. It is the lowest level of thinking.

I will state very plainly what I and others have repeated time and again: I do not hate Hillary Clinton. I think her policies are wrong for the United States government at this time.

Period. End of story. I don't hate her; I actually like many things about her. I wish she had stayed true to her early principles and not voted for the IWR or sided with the financial elite. Bill too. I really liked that his whole deal is to bring in smart, innovative thinkers instead of doing it the same old way. I appreciate that. I think Hillary is smart and strong. But I do not agree with her policies as evidenced by her record and statements.

This country is struggling mightily and her people are being cheated. When I travel to Europe and see the quality of life there, I know there is a better way. No one I have met in Denmark has two jobs. Not a single person. But in my neighborhood, most of those with families do. Americans look sick and tired and overweight. Europeans look much healthier and get to enjoy life more. I think that the role of government is purely to make people's lives better. We have gotten so far away from that idea we don't even know what it looks like. Neoliberalism will not get us there. We actually need a strong dose of liberalism to correct for the far right shift that has happened since Reagan.

That's all.

[DanTex]

112. A lot of criticism of Obama was also grounded in irrational hatred.

A certain post about used car salesmen comes to mind. That one was very telling: Obama passed the most significant piece of safety net legislation in a generation, but the fact that he didn't get single payer (which was totally impossible politically) somehow made him a POS.

Now we have Hillary Clinton, who has a long track record of fighting for progressive causes, campaigning on a platform similar to Bernie's putting economic inequality front and center. The idea that she is a candidate "for the 1%" is so absurd that it can only be based in irrational hatred. If you go issue by issue, you will find that people like the Koch Brothers are opposed to almost everything she supports. Minimum wage? Healthcare? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Privatizing SS and Medicare? Environmental policy? And so on.

[BrotherIvan]

121. Now we have found where we differ

That seems like progress. And maybe this is something that we can all talk about so people understand that this is opinion, not emotion. I agree that the Republicans do not favor those policies. I don't agree that when Clinton stumps for them she actually means them because her record shows evidence to the contrary. That is the main thrust of my argument, and nowhere does that contain hatred. If we could explain ourselves and our motivations without labels of emotions, then we might have the kind of discussion board that supporters of all the candidates seek.

[DanTex]

130. What part of her record shows the contrary?

True, she voted for the IWR, something which everyone including her sees as a mistake. But other than that? Her voting record ranked her the 13th most liberal senator. She voted against the Bush tax cuts. She voted against CAFTA. She voted against both Alito and Roberts. Etc.

Here's a Vox article about her record.
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8779449/hillary-clinton-populist-record

The thing, is the commonly-held opinion on DU that Hillary is some corporatist 1%-er stooge is most certainly not based on her record. It might not all be personal hatred. Some of it is probably blaming Hillary for things that her husband did. Maybe there's some other explanation. But it's not based on evidence.

[BrotherIvan]

155. That is exactly what we should be discussing

What does her record and history reflect? It is very fair to examine those things for someone who wants the highest office in our country. When a president enters the room, everyone has to stand (and often clap). If she wants it, she is going to have to withstand the scrutiny. It is only fair for people to examine whether her beliefs and policies reflect theirs. That's why calling it hatred accomplishes nothing. If her record is as liberal and as strong as you say, that will come out. As her supporter, you can help that come about on DU. One liners and outrage is self-defeating, though I admit to my own weakness in that regard.

[DanTex]

158. I agree. But let me ask you this.

Take the last paragraph of the OP:

In my humble opinion, her actions, her history, and most importantly her friends in the financial industry, give glaring lie to this sudden eruption of populist fervor. She railed against all of the entities that are tearing the country to rags on Saturday, and then cashed their checks when her pals at the bank opened for business on Monday. That is the sharp truth of it, and all the YEAH BUT REPUBLICANS arguments can go pound sand. When Secretary Clinton and the most terrifying GOP candidates on the skin of the Earth share the same donor list, the (D) after her name doesn't matter a dime.

To say that there's not a dime's difference between Clinton and the GOP is so absurdly unhinged that I would feel dishonest pretending it's anything but irrational hatred. You can pick any issue you want, and you'll immediately see how false this is. E.g. the Bush tax cuts, which Hillary voted against. Every Republican in the field would return them, and possibly lower the top rate even more.

No Republican in the field wants to do anything about global warming.

No Republican in the field wants to preserve the ACA.

Most if not all Republicans in the field would like to cut and privatize Social Security, and replace Medicare with vouchers.

None of them support raising the minimum wage.

And so on.

One last thing. To say that Clinton and the GOP have "the same donor list" is an outright slanderous lie. The Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson do not support Democrats. Are there wealthy people who support Dems? Of course, but not all wealthy people are the same person. There's a huge difference between George Soros and Tom Steyer on the one hand and Adelson and Koch on the other. Anyone even slightly informed about American politics knows this.


So, yeah, I think irrational hatred is the only explanation for this OP, as well as for the other poster who claimed that Hillary's real goal is enriching the 1%. And I would say to Hillary critics, if you don't want to come off as irrational and hateful, then stay away from the lies.

[BrotherIvan]

211. That is a good argument, well said

I do think there is a difference between Democrats. I would gladly vote for HRC over ANY Republican. But, I do have grave misgivings over her ties to Wall Street. Dimon, Blankfein, et al are just as dangerous as Koch Bros and Addleson. I would like the Democrats to be as beholden to their constituents and working people as to the corporations. I don't think the status quo is all there is.

[DanTex]

212. Thanks. I would disagree that Dimon, Blankfein are just as dangerous as Koch and Adelson.

However, I can see your side of this argument, and I don't think it's worth debating.

What I disagree with more strongly is the idea (from the OP, not you) that Wall Street is all-in for Clinton in the way that Koch and Adelson are all-in for the GOP. First, the OP makes the often-repeated claim that Wall Street firms top Clinton's donor list. This is accurate, but what everyone who repeats this claim either fails to mention or is not aware of, is the money you see in those tables comes from individuals working at those firms, not from the firms themselves. So it's not like Goldman is writing campaign checks to Hillary, instead, individuals who work at Goldman are writing $2700 checks to Hillary. This is obviously not some collective attempt at bribery on behalf of Goldman employees, what's happening is that banks employ a lot of well-paid people, and so when you total individual contributions by employer, it's not surprising that banks end up at the top of the list.

Especially since Hillary was a Senator from New York. If you look at a list of New York's top employers, JPMorgan, Citi, etc. will be on it. They are not the only organizations on it, there are also universities, medical centers, retailers like Walmart, the state of NY, etc. But the banks pay much higher salaries, meaning that there are a lot more potential $2700 contributors than you'd find at Walmart even if Walmart employs more people in NY than Citi. And, believe it or not, there are liberals who work at Goldman, JP, and Citi.

The way that the Koch Brothers back the GOP is entirely different. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars with the explicit purpose of supporting far-right candidates win elections, at all levels. As a point of contrast, it is worth examining the actual amount that employees from banks have donated to Hillary in a supposed effort to "own" her. Over the course of her career, Citi has been that largest source of individual donations to Hillary. The total amount of donations was $782K. Less that $1M, and that includes all her different campaigns going back to the senate. This is peanuts compared to the total amounts that she has raised. And, like I said, this wasn't a check from Citi, it was from people who worked at Citi.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=n00000019&cycle=Career

If you dig a little deeper, you will find that a bank tops a list of donors to the Ready for Hillary PAC. Which bank? That would be Amalgamated Bank, who donated $1M in 2014, more than all Citi employees combined over all previous election cycles:
https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib_all.php?cmte=C00540997&type=A&cycle=2014
And just who is this "evil Wall Street bank" donating all this money to a Hillary PAC? It's happens to be a small New York based banked which is unionized and union-owned, and openly supported the Occupy movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamated_Bank
https://www.amalgamatedbank.com/our-history

[Rex]

116. IMO you should stop waisting your time on the "hate criers", they want you to do that.

The 'hate' garbage is all they have(to keep people from critical thinking much easier to pretend to pander to emotion like the republicans do), forget about it...is it really worth feeding their tiny egos?

No.

[heaven05]

151. +100

[appalachiablue]

206. +1 This country is struggling and declining from 30 years of neoliberal strangulation.

And that has to change or we're headed for very dangerous times and a failed state in many regions of the US where it's already happening. From traveling and living in Europe for years it's reassuring to hear that a decent, balanced quality of life still exists there. We are an overworked, overweight, overmedicated and increasingly unhealthy society that has deteriorated radically in the past three decades.

Excess consumerism, unhealthy lifestyles, deregulation of our water, air, soil, food and about everything else, the death of liberalism and democratic institutions, globalization and the pursuit of profit has taken a massive toll on this country. In his call to arms to alter the course Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who is venturing into this disturbing reality and he has my wholehearted support.

[BrotherIvan]

208. You are exactly right

And I am not meaning to beat people up for their weight or anything like that. I'm just saying that the difference in lifestyle is very noticeable. Our healthcare does not represent health at all. It represents profit. It's no wonder people are seeking alternatives. People want to feel healthy, not medicated. Two completely different ideas and American doctors are being trained only in how to deal in drugs but have very little knowledge about human health.

Even down to the idea of public space and gardens for the people of the city to walk in. I live in Los Angeles and try to walk as much as possible, but if you want to get to a park I have to drive. Even new areas built in Europe have public spaces because there is a sense of civic planning in those cities, not just profit. People travel and are encouraged to see other countries far more than in the US. And in the Nordic countries, I did not see homeless people because of their social safety net. When my Euro friends and relatives saw tent city on skid row, they rightly said that the US is a third world country in many ways.

So yes, we are being shortchanged and most people don't even know it. When there is absolutely no reason for it!!! We are a wealthy country because of our vast and diverse resources, something very few countries have at our level. We could be sharing our wealth and bounty so much differently. It really doesn't have to be this way. We do need to reimagine America, much like the rebels did who came up with the idea. And this time, we need to make sure it applies to all genders, races, sexual orientations, the handicapped, including everyone. It is entirely possible to make sure that our standard of living is the highest in the world. There will always be inequality, but this level is ridiculous.

[L0oniX]

167. LMFAO ...keep trying.

[quickesst]

71. I don't know what's going to be worse

All the pissing, moaning, and groaning pre-election, or all the crying post-election when she wins. Tough call.

[Zorra]

75. Every picture tells a story.

Some. even long, sordid non-fiction novels.



Thanks for another *thought provoking* OP.

[Thespian2]

88. Thanks again, WilliamPitt

Very insightful look into the depths of campaign rhetoric...

[Oilwellian]

97. Great piece, Will

It's time to get the Third Way, neoliberal, war and bank loving, sycophantic, so-called Democrats, out of leadership positions within the party.

K&R

[840high]

132. +1

[mother earth]

106. Blatant hypocrisy of the highest order. A complete pandering sham of monumental inconsistency...

She railed against all of the entities that are tearing the country to rags on Saturday, and then cashed their checks when her pals at the bank opened for business on Monday.

No, DNC, No, HRC, we shall not be fooled, nor shall we abandon our principles...know this...a great shift is occurring. People are fed up & business as usual does not bode well for your campaign, nor does it bode well for the country...so "business as usual" is over.

Feel the Bern...

We aren't going quietly. We are not being fooled. Not only does the GOP underestimate the people, the DNC grossly underestimates the people...but they'll soon realize everything is changing.

K & R

[HassleCat]

114. Those donor lists

Sure, many of the names on both lists are shared between parties, but some are not. It's common practice for interest groups to give to both parties. That way, they have access no matter who gets elected. Politics has been done that way for some time, now. Yes, Clinton is a practitioner of "those" politics, and is pretty cozy with some big-money interests. If you look at the Democratic Party (our party) as a whole, you will find the majority of Democratic elected officials connected to various interest groups that give them campaign donations. If you read the donor lists closely, you will usually find some significant differences between the D and the R lists, and I bet this is true in Clinton's case. I have not inspected the lists, but I remember some differences between the Obama list and the Romney list, and I would be very surprised if similar differences are not resent this time. If you want to ignore shades of gray, and make everything black or white, OK, but what happens if Clinton wins the nomination? You voting for Trump, or what?

[Rex]

119. What is/was her opinion on OWS?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/22/1264660/-Hillary-Clinton-Tells-Wall-Street-She-Believes-Anti-Wall-Street-Rhetoric-Foolish#

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

123. You got two factors to look at now and you may want to think twice.

Factor one is Bush -the long standing GOP loyal family.
And factor two as of now -Trump.

And the billions of dollars clown is no joking matter if he is actually all in.
Regardless all in or not Trump plans on changing the nature of the game.

As the saying goes, money talks and bull shit walks.

That fact of the matter is -, if you the politician shun the power mongers aka greedy masters, your walk is short as are your chances
to get anywhere .

Thats the thin line and the thin dime.
In politics lies ,deceit and promises that cannot be delivered are always part of the nature of game.
To see through it and beyond the hype is the responsibility of the owners of the government bearing to mind it is not necessarily about you in your time.In fact it's not.

Thats the hard part- that of realizing it is not all about you in your time. You want your children to do better, better than you,- and you want your country to be better, better for them ,their children and their children's children beyond your time.
And we must think global too.

Thats the genius of it.
It's a long road ahead with many many mile markers to get past.

So, what do you believe of disbelieve ? And that makes talk. But is it really all about what you believe ?

[DownriverDem]

135. What did Bernie tell you folks about Hillary?

Bernie said he would not attack Hillary. He also said he is not running as a spoiler so some RWNJ can win. I get the feeling that the negative Hillary posters are just trolls.

Keep your eyes on the prize. This is about more than the White House. It's about the Senate, House and Supreme Court. Repubs know this lesson all too well.

I am supporting Hillary, but will proudly vote for whoever is the Dem nominee.

I hope you folks here understand that no matter what we don't want a RWJN to win.

[JDPriestly]

138. K&R.

This is so goodhttp://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31397-don-t-believe-the-hype-candidate-clinton-s-sudden-populism that I have to repeat it:

"When Secretary Clinton and the most terrifying GOP candidates on the skin of the Earth share the same donor list, the (D) after her name doesn't matter a dime."

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31397-don-t-believe-the-hype-candidate-clinton-s-sudden-populism

[Avalux]

140. Great read! This really made the hair stand up on my neck:

"The roll-call of Mrs. Clinton's top twenty campaign donors is topped by Citibank, and includes Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse Group ... basically, a cohort of the worst people in the United States, the ones who gamed the system by buying politicians like her and then proceeded to burn the economy down to dust and ash while making a financial killing in the process."

and although I will vote for her if forced to do so, I cannot be enthusiastic about electing someone that will keep this country on it's current trajectory - to the bottom.

[AtomicKitten]

141. k & an enthusiastic r

[DebbieCDC]

142. Bravo

[colsohlibgal]

143. Talk Is So Cheap You Have To Follow Through

Remember Obama sounded like Noam Chomsky in 2008 then went directly to Neo Democrat the minute he was in the White House.

[Bugenhagen]

154. Bernie is running on his long, consistent, excellent history...

Hillary is trying to run on his too. At least for the primary.

[Omaha Steve]

157. I just got the email from Truthout

K&R!

[Brian66]

164. Four months or more ago ...

.... I predicted she would get the nomination - and LOSE to Jeb, who wasn't even in the talking stage at that time.

Folks, the 'fix' is in - and has been all along.

Anyone who believes otherwise is either not paying attention or very naive.

All the hoopla about primaries, etc., is nothing but window dressing.

[Evergreen Emerald]

169. What bothers me about articles like this is their complete

lack of facts proving these assertions. These references to NAFTA "she supported her husband" as if she were all knowing and all powerful. These types of articles use today's standards in judging NAFTA, and like Monday quarterbacking, have all of the right answers. It ignores that Bill has mentioned the unintended consequences of NAFTA.

This article blames Clinton for her donors--without blaming anyone and everyone else who has ever received money from corporations (like Obama, Kennedy...etc). She is held to a higher standard than anyone else ever has. She said something wrong five yeas ago--she is so evil and horrible. I often wonder how much of it is sexism.

And of course articles like these completely ignore the good Clinton has done in the world including the bills she put forth while in the Senate and her votes in the Senate--that prove her populism.

"Don't believe her sudden populism?" This title is deceiving, and frankly lazy. Rather than doing work of a journalist, this article just joins the chorus of negative spin, treating it as fact rather than actually looking at her record. Yes, Virgina, there is a Beelzebub. Just look at what the press says it about her. It must be true.

[MFrohike]

177. What?

60% of House Democrats voted against it in 1993. They knew it was trash BEFORE the fact. They didn't need the hindsight of 20 years to predict that.

It's entirely reasonable in the aftermath of a multi-trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street to be wary of candidates with strong ties to finance. It's not a higher standard, the times have changed. Just wait until Jebbie has to explain his private equity ties to the tea partiers. That will be a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

Fair and balanced is the complaint? Seriously? There's not only no obligation to write a mealy-mouthed, faux even-handed article, it would be dishonest to do so. All that would do is confuse the point of the article without adding any value. Rest assured, there is plenty good to say about her. If nothing else, she handled some of the nastiest attacks in American political history with grace, humor, and intelligence. People scoffed when she spoke of a vast, right-wing conspiracy. Nobody scoffs now. Even with that, it's better to tell that story in its own article. Otherwise, you end up with a muddled mess that serves no one.

The title is accurate as far as the article is concerned. His point is not to trust her. He makes his case for that. Whether or not you find it persuasive is irrelevant as far as the accuracy of the title. It'd be a different story if the title claimed something completely unsupported by the article itself. That's not the case here.

[TM99]

180. And there it is...

the sexism charge thrown out yet again.

We use today's standards to judge media in the 1950's as being sexist. We use today's standards to judge FDR's New Deal as being racist. We use today's standards to call 1980's politicians homosexual bigots given the AIDS crisis. The irony of now calling another valid criticism of HRC sexism is quite delicious.

Plenty of Democrats, economists, and labor leaders knew how bad NAFTA was going to be. That sucking sound meme was not an accident.

Yes, we should be keenly aware of her donors especially since so many of them are responsible for one of the worst banking crises this country has ever seen.

Populist means of and for the people. That is not HRC's legacy in any capacity. So many are confusing her moderately socially liberal stances for 'populism' when some of those are even just evolving.

[d_legendary1]

209. Uh...what?

1. Ross Perot predicted EXACTLY what would happen if NAFTA was passed. Don't talk about today's standards since people back then knew what the free trade agreements meant.

http://www.businessinsider.com/looks-like-ross-perot-was-right-about-the-giant-sucking-sound-2011-2

2A. Obama was critized for having billionaire backers during his campaign. Goldman Sachs was among those who donated money to his bid for president.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/15/obama-backers-billionaires-biz-billies-inauguration09-cz_co_0115funding.html

2B. John F. Kennedy was outspent by Obama (since we're speaking about presidents) and JFK was pre-citizens united.

http://www.theawl.com/2012/11/presidential-fundraising-adjusted-for-inflation

3. The people of New York liked her enough to make her Senator (though the rest of the stiffs she was up against didn't stand a chance). As for president we shall wait and see (I'll vote for her if she wins the nomination).

4. Most people I've talked to (I know, not much of a sample but nevertheless) will vote for her just because she was married to Bubba. If that counts as populism then the Jebster will be a shoe in for president since his brother and daddy were president. People are fickle like that and sadly they vote as they feel.

[Ellipsis]

170. "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" ain't it n/t

[Hoppy]

183. She's about as populist as my left nut.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

202. We're talking cashews and almonds, right?

Or are you getting down in the trenches with the lowly legumes?

[Hoppy]

210. Yes, teh legumes.

[Progressive dog]

199. Hillary is not a Populist

ho hum.
She is a Democrat and few Democrats are populists. Few populists have ever held office and essentially none have accomplished anything that will be remembered by anyone.
I am glad Hillary is not a reincarnation of Huey Long or Father Coughlin and their supporters. I wonder where the USA would be if they had made FDR a one term President.

[raouldukelives]

205. K&R "Help me!"

Not only do they "share the same donor list". So many more are dedicated to increasing the funds & influence of those donors, everyday, to the point that even our deaths in the street and the decibels in our voices is dimmed and diluted by the gravitas of corporate influence to the point of ludicrousness.

Like Vincent Price bound to a Wall St spiderweb. If you listen real closely you can hear our plea.