General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I have fucking had it with: "Sanders, which could potentially force Hillary Clinton further left..." [View all]TM99
(8,352 posts)We do not bash Clinton for making money. We rightly question the perceptions that are given when you surround yourself with the wealthy elite. When you take their money, there is an expectation of quid pro quo. It may be completely legal, but the question to ask is whether it is ethical. To ask that question is not to bash. After all, we are reminded daily that Sanders can not win because of the 'optics'. He is a 'socialist'. He has 'bad hair'. He doesn't 'look' presidential. How are those optics not in effect with Clinton?
Do you know anything about her actual time at State? She had no signature diplomatic breakthroughs or treatises. There were constant problems between Clinton at State and the Obama White House over foreign policy issues. She was far more hawkish than he was.
And yes, the foreign policy position of the Obama administration is a direct continuation of the Bush administration. The War on Terror is a neo-conservative position through and through. Research the Project of a New American Century. Then come back and talk to me about Clinton not being a neo-con.