Partly it seems to highlight the anomalies and absurdities that have characterised this campaign as well as accentuate, based on her previous form, Clinton's palpable lack of fitness for the Oval Office, Andrew Levine from the Institute for Policy Studies singled out so-called "progressive liberals" for their unstinting support of Hillary. In his view, no notable people within this nebulous constituency (one of her fans Paul Krugman comes to mind here) have been able to come up with examples of "anything progressive or even worthwhile that Hillary has accomplished."
Levine notes, somewhat acerbically, as First Lady Clinton,
'...set the cause of health care reform back a generation, laying the groundwork for all that's wrong with Obamacare; as a Senator, she did nothing noteworthy at all; and, worst of all, as Secretary of State, all she has been good for is facilitating world-endangering disasters.'
And on the neoliberal front, more people are now viewing secretive faux trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) as economic Trojan Horses concocted to enhance corporate power and influence, allowing the transnationals to further enrich themselves at the expense of the national sovereignty, economic prosperity and self-determination of the countries who sign off on them. Our all but obligatory commitment to this agreement has many Australians seriously doubtful not just abut the alleged benefits of the pact itself, but our hitherto 'no questions asked' vassal-status alliance with America in general. Clinton's flip-flopping on this issue is not a good look for those increasingly opposed to these 'trade' regimes.
Further, despite her earnest proclamations about reining in Wall Street, Clinton is no more likely to entertain this prospect than Obama was, and for not dissimilar reasons. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either rationally challenged or reality impaired. Their respective presidential campaigns -- indeed their political ascendancy -- were funded in large part and via various means by the 'gang-banksters' of 'grab-it-all street'.
Moreover, these massive payments -- essentially frocked-up 'payola' disguised as speaking fees, charitable donations, or campaign contributions -- she (along with her husband it should be noted, whose own political ascendance and longevity has been greatly aided and abetted by the 'Street' mavens past and present), has received from the financial industry, translates to Mrs Clinton taking up the mantle once in office as the crucial bulwark between the financial felons and the folks with the pitchforks.
As Pepe Escobar has noted, although "Wall Street's Golden Girl" likes to portray herself, at least for public consumption, as a dedicated disciple of the "No Bank Is Too Big To Fail" ethos [and is] "fully committed" to financial industry reform, she is,
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
11
8
8
