Progressive Pragmatism versus Liberal Elitism

[LWolf]

18. What do you mean by

"pandering?" Taking positions that she doesn't mean to get votes, or taking money from corporations and supporting their policies? Really, all you have to do to say that no one provides a "concrete example" is to disagree that the examples demonstrate "pandering." It's not likely you'd acknowledge any example provided you, concrete or not.

One could say she doesn't mean what she says because she seems to shift her stances with every poll, but when anyone claims that, they're told she's "evolving," and that her evolution should be embraced. That's "evolving," and "triangulating." Or, from my perspective, it's pandering by taking positions she doesn't mean to get votes.

Related: Clinton’s Big Switch from ‘Moderate’ to Liberal Activist

This has sent a chill into the hearts of a particular Washington specimen: the self-appointed guardians of order. Mark Halperin flatly accused Clinton of lying about her opposition to TPP. Others pointed to Clinton’s praise for TPP in her recent book, or the 45 times she’s spoken out in favor of it. And Ezra Klein pronounced himself “unnerved” because it shows her as calculating and poll-driven.

In other words, the theory goes, Clinton is pandering, taking a position that she may not sincerely support to appease a faction of the constituency she wants in her corner. Unions don’t like TPP or the Cadillac tax, and with Bernie Sanders breathing down her neck, Clinton had to adjust her profile to keep their endorsements rolling in.

There are definitely signs that Clinton had prior (and very possibly, future) support for TPP. Her top policy advisor on the deal while at the State Department, Robert Hormats, praised it the day before she came out against it. If you take the temperature of those in her policy orbit, you would probably find more supporters than opponents.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/09/Praise-Hillary-Clinton-s-Shameless-Pandering

If pandering involves her somewhat questionable dealings with corporations, DUers are certainly not alone in pointing them out. Again, I doubt that you'd ever acknowledge the obvious, concrete problems with her corporate ties.

Selling support for nuclear deal with India:

Although Hillary Clinton was a vocal advocate for nonproliferation during her 2008 presidential bid, she seemingly shifted gears on the issue after well-connected Indian officials lavished her husband with paid speaking engagements, and his foundation with generous donations.

Indian money began flowing to the philanthropy after a bill that would have softened restrictions on nuclear trade with the country met resistance in Congress. At the time, then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton was an opponent of the legislation.

Amar Singh, a member of India's parliament, began to pour money into the Clinton Foundation. He donated between $1 million and $5 million, even though it was later revealed his entire net worth was only $5 million.

After a two-hour dinner with Hillary Clinton in New York City in September 2008, Singh told the press in his country that Hillary Clinton had informed him Democrats would not block the nuclear deal and that she had promised to give "all the support" it needed to pass.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/top-10-clinton-conflicts-of-interest/article/2564035

Friday's news actually brings two, somewhat-related stories about questionable practices at the Clinton Foundation, the charitable organization that Bill Clinton created after leaving the White House. Reuters notes that when she became secretary of state in 2009, Hillary Clinton pledged to President Obama that the foundation would issue an annual report of all of its donors, to ease worries about foreign influence on the nation's top diplomat. That promise soon fell by the wayside, though: The Clinton Health Access Initiative, by far the foundation's largest element, hasn't issued a report since 2010. (CHAI was spun off that year, but remains subject to the same rules.) An official acknowledged the mistake.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal notes that while the foundation also forswore donations from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was helming the State Department, "that didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows." Specifically:

One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities. Their professed policy interests range from human rights to U.S.-Cuba relations.

All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillarys-campaign-is-built-on-a-shaky-foundation/388324/

Interestingly enough, this is the most I've posted about HRC since the primaries began. I'll point out that it's only because you asked. I don't really have any interest in spending time talking about Clinton.