I admit she is imperfect. If I had to rate her though, I would say she is more ethical than 99% of the republicans, and probably in the middle of the pack when it comes to Democrats (and probably no more or less ethical than Sanders).
More ethical than most GOP is a pretty low bar. No less ethical than Sanders? Give me a break. The guy sat as an independent for decades because he wanted to stay away from their corporate-whored BS. How he was treated by a bought-off (by Hillary) and corrupted DNC during his 2016 run proves his point: Washington is corrupted by money.
Name me a more ethical politician in Washington than Sanders?
Yes, Clinton did get paid for a few speeches to large companies. However, she also had as part of her platform, policies to curtail risk-taking by big banks, increased oversight on derivatives trading, and increasing the statute of limitations on some financial crimes. Granted, she was not as far left as people like Sanders, but her plans were certainly more 'left wing' than 'right wing'.
Her "platform" is BS until talk is turned into action. She has decades of voting with the establishment. Election promises mean nothing.
If anyone thought she was 'bought and paid for', the would have wanted their money back. https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/hillary-clintons-war-on-wall-street-000175
More promises, where's the action? Show me how tough she's been on Wall Street in her voting record. Meanwhile she takes many millions from Wall Street to fund her campaign.
Yes, she raised a lot of money. And yes, some came from large donors.
Not "some", most. She raised 1.2 billion dollars. That's twice what Trump raised. Most lobbyists and corps and industries chose her, she was the establishment candidate and plays the game.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/This doesn't mean Clinton was unethical. It means a lot of people (including some rich people) looked at her policies and felt it was best for the country.
Well some did. But are you unaware of how politics and especially DC works? Money buys power, influence, a seat at the table, favours to be paid back in policy. You think the Clinton's are immune to this? You think 1.2 billion was given to her with no strings attached? Do you think Bernie Sanders, mayor from 1981-1989, and Congressman since 1991 doesn't know what he's talking about and hasn't seen 1st-hand how the levers of money are greased with money.
Why are you against Citizen United? If money has no influence in DC politics, unlimited donations to SuperPACS would be inconsequential because " It means a lot of people (including some rich people) looked at candidate X's policies and felt it was best for the country". Give me a break. You can't be against Citizens United and for campaign finance reform as you are and then deny money has no influence, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Donna Brazile, who worked for CNN, was for decades a Clinton insider, running campaigns for Bill and Al Gore etc. She was caught feeding CNN debate questions to Clinton before the debate, and was subsequently fired from CNN for it. Please convince us how this just had nothing to do with Hillary, this is how the power-hungry Clintons & cronies operate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Brazile#Sharing_debate_questions_with_Clinton_campaignOh and by the way, Also keep in mind that Clinton actually had plans for campaign finance reform, including matching donations for small donors and overturning citizens united (that second one would have been a long shot for any politician unfortunately.) https://time.com/4024830/hillary-clinton-campaign-finance-proposal/
Proposals and election promises in DC are BS. Obama spoke for years as POTUS about campaign finance reform, but he did virtually NOTHING. He was a very good POTUS as far as POTUS's go, but he was still part of the machine. He and Bill Clinton are just better at fooling people than Hillary was.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/08/obamas-legacy-inaction-campaign-finance-reform-exposedhttps://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/257112-obamas-not-yet-fulfilled-legacy-on-money-in-politicsNo, it didn't happen that way. Yes, it is true... some executives at the DNC preferred Clinton to Sanders. But their preferences were not relevant to the primaries. The primaries themselves are controlled at the state level, and the DNC just doesn't really have the influence to affect the results.
The fact is, Clinton was a long time democrat who had been working within the party for decades. Sanders was an outsider who was attempting to hijack the party for his own purposes. Under those circumstances it makes sense that most Democrats would have preferred Hillary to Bernie.
Except maybe she's not.
A bunch of malarkey. Sanders attempted to "hijack" the party?? They allowed him to run, and ran the same game he's done for decades. If by "hijack" you mean get corporate money out of politics and the party, i guess you're right! Hillary is the one who hijacked the party. she gave (other people's) money to the DNC in exchange for a deal where she had virtual complete control over the party. Imagine one candidate of many having that kind of power over the party? It's full-scale corruption. The DNC was a corrupt piece of crap and Hillary was the headmaster. Even Warren agreed the damn thing was rigged:
But lets put that into context... prior to the 2016 election the Democrats had significant financial problems (which had little to do with Clinton). Clinton had both the resources and willingness to help them out. What do you think they should have done? Let the Democrats declare bankruptcy? Fight the 2016 election with no paid staff or similar resources?
She could have helped out by not demanding almost complete control over the party, which sought to undermine Sanders' campaign. Stop shilling for her.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-sanders"The agreement — signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and [Clinton campaign manager] Robby Mook with a copy to [Clinton campaign counsel] Marc Elias— specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised."
“[Clinton’s] campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”
During the 2016 election, Sanders allies alleged that the DNC did not act as a neutral arbiter of the Democratic primary, favoring Clinton in its selection of debate times and fundraising. Their suspicions were only heightened when leaked emails published by WikiLeaks,But, if you look at her record, she is pretty reliable.
Reliable at crappy decision making and crappy votes in the Senate:
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/sep/02/11-examples-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-hol/Why do you automatically assume being an 'outsider' is necessarily better?
Because Washington is corrupt to the core and bought off by corporations.
Yet Clinton lost to someone who 1) lied constantly, 2) won through the support of Russian efforts.
Because she's not a good politician and is a loser, twice.
The way I see it, Clinton's biggest problem is that she was honest.
She was too honest??? Hahaha. Her problem is that she was Queen
**** of the Washington establishment that people were sick of, given the rise of Sanders and Trump, and people don't trust her or like her, for all the reasons i've explained.
Home
Contact
Login
Register