As progressives, we all abhor the corrupting influence of money in politics. Both Bernie and Hillary support campaign finance reform. Bernie has called for public campaign financing of all federal elections. In opposing ‘Citizens United’ dark money Hillary has pledged to use it at as a litmus test for her nominees to the Supreme Court.
But in the meantime, and in light of recent revelations that Bernie accepts special interest money too, why should any rational person expect Hillary to stop playing by the rules and unilaterally disarm ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Please share widely!
I agree with you (hence my recommendation). The answer to your rhetorical question is obvious, though — the reason why a rational person wants (and therefore expects) Ms. Clinton to unilaterally disarm is that said person wants his or her preferred candidate to win.
There’s no mystery here, the motivation seems obvious to me. That’s why I dislike the line of attack so much, why I think it will fail, and — frankly — why Ms. Clinton is more presidential than Mr. Sanders.
This is an attack of desperation, and candidates of presidential caliber NEVER allow their campaigns to appear desperate.
I have absolutely no idea what the heck you’re talking about without that context.
But let’s pretend for a second that I do. Why the hell shouldn’t someone unilaterally disarm from something that would gain them popularity among the people?
The goal here is to do the right thing, and put the power in the people. Unilaterally disarm and then bash your opponent over and over and over again for not following suit.
Hillary Clinton absolutely, positively could have creamed Bernie if she unilaterally disarmed from Wall St funds before her campaign. Bernie would have no campaign right now if Hillary was genuinely seen as someone who’s anti-Wall St, and she would have sailed right through to the nomination. That Hillary didn’t ‘unilaterally disarm’ from the start is exactly what gave the room in this campaign for an unknown, insurgent candidate from the left.