Why you can't expect HRC to oppose the tpa/tpp: Money

[cali]

A couple of days ago, Wall Street tycoons- many who are directly responsible for the crash-and business leaders from NY, signed on to a letter to Congress urging support for the tpa (fast track) and the tpp.

Many of these people head up industries which are among some of HRC's largest donors. (yes, I know corporations don't actually give to political campaigns but we can we not pretend that that's anything but the smallest of fig leaves?)

If HRC came out against fast track and the tpp, she'd risk losing huge amounts of money for her campaign and Super PACs.

This one situation, starkly illustrates the enormous problem with big money in politics.

Money=Access. Access all too often equals influence.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. Why?

Why is there a daily attack on Clinton on this DU democratic board? Nothing factual. Nothing other than an opinion voiced hourly with attack posts.

If you like your candidate, support him.

[cali]

2. this isn't an attack. it illustrates the problems we face with

a political system awash in money. I get the problem facing HRC as concerns money. I understand that she can't forgo raising this kind of cash, but that doesn't mean it's not a very dangerous thing for what is left of our democracy.

oh, and I sure haven't noticed you chiding the numerous HRC supporters attacking Sanders.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. Please --the problem with money in politics

has nothing to do with Clinton any more than it does with Sanders or the Kennedys or Kerry or any of the other millionaires who run for office.

[cali]

4. please, that's complete nonnsense

Big money and super packs are a huge problem. This has nothing to do with personal wealth at all. And, btw,Bernie isn't close to being a millionaire.

[Evergreen Emerald]

8. There is no evidence that Clinton is corrupt

There is nothing to support the corrupt meme that the RW started. I believe there is an underlying societal bias against older women. And that is seeping out into this election. Clinton is held to a much higher standard than anyone else. Sanders talks in generalities and people fawn and cheer. Clinton gives specifics on her platform and many on DU jeer. Clinton has excelled in everything she has ever done--Sanders is mediocre.

Money in politics is an issue. I don't want Koch electing our President. But, the money in politics is no more a problem with Clinton than any other democrat.

[cali]

11. why are you arguing against your own candidate?

Hillary herself has made this a major issue.

This is not about Hillary being corrupt. It's about a SYSTEM being corrupt and dysfunctional- something she has noted.

I'm going to ignore your inane rambling.

I agree that money big money in politics is a problem for many dems. And sorry, but the facts demonstrate that it is a bigger problem for HRC than for any other dem. Most of that is a function of her running for President.

I'm not going to bother with your fawning over Clinton. I don't do adoration like you obviously do- not with Sanders or anyone else.

One more time: This is a huge systemic problem. It is literally unraveling the democratic aspects of our elections. I appreciate HRC vocalizing opposition to it, but yeah, her campaign is part of the problem.

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. Lol

Yeah. go for the personal attack. Nice.

[cali]

14. sigh. I was attacking what you said- it was irrelevant

to the issue, thus inane.

Again, your own candidate sees this as a huge problem

[eggplant]

17. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Fri May 8, 2015, 09:44 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

why are you arguing against your own candidate?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6640952

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Inane rambling" is a personal attack, a tool this poster should not be using. This conversation was nothing but polite until we got there. Please vote to hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 8, 2015, 09:47 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: You have unnecessarily made this personal. You have great things to say and are an asset to the site, but making it personal is below you.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[radiclib]

22. What color is the sky on your planet?

Sanders talks in generalities and people fawn and cheer. Clinton gives specifics on her platform and many on DU jeer

That is just comical.

[RiverNoord]

24. I agree. Money in politics is an issue.

It's a tremendous issue. If it isn't reeled in soon, our national government will become a permanent asset of multinational corporations. The interests of the American people will become irrelevant, and American politics will be a continuous process of power games among multinationals.

The problem is the same throughout national political landscape. The thing is, it is absolutely going to get much, much worse if those who are best at playing the big money game are the ones who keep getting into high office.

Hillary Clinton has become one of the great masters of obtaining large-scale financial support for political campaigns from very wealthy business interests. This, more than anything else, is the reason why there is quite a lot of hostility directed toward her from people here, as well as throughout the 'progressive' political landscape.

Bernie Sanders is a very different kind of candidate - he's been waging, unfortunately, a losing battle against big money in politics for several decades. If he became the President of the United States, we might - might have a shot at seriously reducing the level of institutionalized bribery in our political system. It is unrealistic to expect any such result from Clinton.

My perspective concerning this has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton being an 'older woman.' I really don't think about people in that way. I don't know about her being held to a 'higher standard than anyone else.' In what respect? If she was running for the office of the President of the United States as a Republican, I expect that, in general, the 'standard(s)' she would be 'held' to would be much, much lower than while running as a Democrat. So, that's a good thing.

I have seen Sanders give interview after interview candidly speaking about money in politics over a span of many years. He supports higher taxes on the very wealthy (before the Reagan-era tax cuts, the highest incremental income tax levels were well over 50%, and had been much higher for many prior decades). He supports publicly-funded higher education. He would like to see Social Security benefits increased, not cut back. These are explicit elements of his platform, not generalities.

On the other hand, since her husband's presidency, I cannot recall a single firm position on any 'progressive' issue that she has taken before the position was already relatively popular among the general public. It's almost like clockwork - she is purposely vague on an issue until it is politically safe to take a progressive stance, and even then she often won't commit to the position, but rather speaks about it in broad, noncommittal terms.

In the end, that means, to me, that Hillary Clinton's second presidential campaign is mainly about her desire to become the President. I don't think that's at all the case with Sanders.

[peacebird]

26. Concern about Clinton has nothing to do with "bias against older women"... Good grief.

[BrotherIvan]

31. She has released her platform?

Because that's the first I've heard. Do you have a link? Because there is absolutely nothing on her site.

[HappyMe]

5. Who said anything about personal wealth?

Pacs and super pacs are the problem.
Sanders is not a millionaire.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. People should look to organzied Labor and other organizations long committed to halting the TPA

and TPP for their rhetorical cues and timing of challenges to political figures. I'm a Union member, so I listen to our leadership as this is an issue we have been working on for years. LGBT labor groups have been particularly involved with opposition to TPP and TPA, I'm not going to fuck with what they have been doing to please those who show up late shouting about partisan politics.

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. I have listened to my Governer on TPP

He is a highly regarded Democrat. And like Obama believes that we need a good trade agreement and we cannot isolate ourselves without falling behind.

However, in doing so, we need to protect workers and the environment. We need to create an agreement that works for us--rather than at our expense for big business.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. I'll be echoing Trumka, no doubt.

nt

[sulphurdunn]

23. The Clinton's

have a long history of support for corporate power. Drawing inferences about Hilary's future behavior based on her past performance is obviously not a fact, but neither is it an obvious attack.

[frylock]

25. ..

[dmosh42]

6. Probably the same reason Obama supports TPP-He owes his rich benefactors!

[trumad]

7. Yawn!

Keep trying.

[donnasgirl]

15. Cali

You are 100% spot on with the post.

[Segami]

16. Kick.

[True Blue Door]

18. Let her promise them the moon and soak up their money.

Then if we can deny her the nomination, have the money she got default to the real candidate.

I assume that's legal, given the campaign finance anarchy after Citizens United.

[Phlem]

19. K&R!

[jalan48]

20. What is Hillary's position on the TPP? Why hasn't she taken one?

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. Look harder

She has taken one.

[jalan48]

29. Care to tell us or is it a secret like the TPP?

[cali]

30. I must have missed that. Does she support it or oppose it.

and it's one or the other- because anything else is not position.

[BrotherIvan]

32. Care to share?

[neverforget]

33. Apparently it's secret like the TPP

[Cheese Sandwich]

21. Sounds like making excuses for her. You can't expect her to oppose it because she needs money to win

So therefore if you want to win then you will not pressure candidates over TPP.

So let HRC say what she must to get the big money, then we can win and once we win then we will worry about getting money out of politics.

But that's a never ending cycle. Candidates and parties are always raising money. The fundraising cycle is eternal.

It just sounds like making excuses for crappy policies.

The same corporate interests pushing TPP will push even harder to block any effort to get money out of politics.

If a politician can't oppose Wall Street over TPP, then she will certainly not be able to oppose them on election reform, when push comes to shove.


Edit: I guess it depends what you mean by "expect".

expect - verb

1. to regard as probable or likely; anticipate ⇒ he expects to win
2. to look forward to or be waiting for ⇒ we expect good news today
3. to decide that (something) is requisite or necessary; require ⇒ the boss expects us to work late today

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/expect

If it means "to regard as probable", then yeah it's certainly not probable.

But on the other hand if it means "to decide that (something) is requisite or necessary" or to require, then I certainly do expect Hillary to oppose the TPP.

[Hoyt]

27. I think she has been very direct and reasonable in her approach, but folks here aren't listening.

"Clinton's approach so far has been to stay vague. "She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and health, promote transparency and open new opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas," her campaign said Friday.

On Tuesday in New Hampshire, the candidate herself added, “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security. We have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/democrats-produce-trade-discord/391224/


Short-sighted people and those who are trying to undermine Obama's efforts to do those things, are the problem right now. If Obama doesn't achieve those objectives and endorses a bad TPP, then I can see cutting him off at the knees. But, I don't think that will happen. He'll abandon the effort first.

Would you feel better if Clinton admonished Obama by wagging her finger in his face like Jan Brewer?

[awoke_in_2003]

34. She can come out against it

Because what is said during the campaign means nothing once elected.