When Warren was asked what she made of Clinton's 'dead broke' remarks:

[freshwest]

15. When this statement is made, I had to think, too:

Between her campaign for president in 2008 and her time as the head of a global foundation, she spent a considerable amount of time courting the money of millionaires and billionaires.

Yes, candidates and foundations beg big donors. I can't afford to give millions to Haiti or other places, or ad time or legal teams to run for office. My viewpoint is that these things are 50-50.

People are not giving her or Bill money to make them rich. They are giving money for the causes which are ignored by many and that charismatic and famous people can draw money into.

It would be better if we were not in this place. MLK, Jr. said:

Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.

We do not have a world wide nation that spends its money on all these things. Humans do have needs around the world that are no longer being met by governments. This is the fault of these same donors - maybe - maybe not.

The ones that are really giving the world a bad time don't donate to foundations that don't advance their plutocratic agenda and seek to make them richer.

HRC is not my candidate. She does not inspire me, but she has been on the right side of the rights of women.

The world is at a turning point. We will let the misogynists make our lives hell or we vote into office those who will ensure half the population is treated equally.

That's more impoortant than the populism or net worth of HRC, Rubio or any other politican that claims to be populist. I don't see the situation as B&W. For many years foundations have helped the liberal causes, so they aren't all bad, nor are the people who are able to fund raise for them.