On Rejecting the Clinton Defense: What Reform Democrats Need
Lessig
593

There are myriad problems with Lessig’s article. For one, the Times has started a new vendetta against the Clintons that very much tracks the one it ran under Howell Raines. For instance, much Times ink has been devoted to Clinton Cash, another version of the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry and the Whitewater attack against the Clintons from the ‘90s. There has been much smoke, but no fire, and the Times added to the smoke by making an utterly unsupported claim that HRC was planning to spend $2.5 billion on her campaign. This particular assertion then was repeated all over the Internet, again without support.

As to the money given to the Clinton foundation, none of it goes to the Clintons themselves. Additionally, receiving vast sums to give speeches is an entirely common practice among politicians. Why are the Clintons being singled out?

This is not to say that I would ever want HRC in office. She has a long, ugly history of supporting corporations and militarism, but this latest attack, like so many of the ones before — against her and Bill — is not one based on her many policy crimes, but on sweeping, unsupported accusations.

If one wanted to bring up disturbing accusations of corruption, I would be much more focused on our current president, a man who was unwilling to follow the law and prosecute torturers; refused to prosecute the financial industry criminals who destroyed our economy and threw millions out of their homes while stealing their pensions and their wages.

Why isn’t Lessig pointing out that our new AG, following in the footsteps of her predecessor, allowed money laundering for cartels and terrorist-affiliated banks while she was keeping HSBC in business and, now that she is the AG, is continuing to settle for cost-of-doing-business fines for the banksters?

Obama’s policies will ensure that he has a very comfortable post-presidency without worrying about making speeches or starting a foundation, though it is highly likely that he will be doing both.

Obama refused to propose universal, single payer health care — even as a bargaining position — and then gave away negotiating for drug prices to Big Pharma and the public option to the insurance industry — while pretending for nine months that he hadn’t. Pretty much the only promise he kept from 2008 was to expand the Afghanistan war.

Indeed, similarly to the Bush administration’s repeated implications that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, Obama’s administration implied that he ended the Iraq war when he merely — after being unable to bully Nouri al-Maliki into going back on it — followed the agreement that Bush had negotiated before leaving office.

The US government is corrupt across the board. Focusing on HRC: “whether public policy has been bent by Clinton or those loyal to Clinton to encourage private gain,” when she is not even in office, and the people controlling the Congress AND the White House are actually committing the corruption you want to focus on Clinton, is a disservice to your readers.

Indeed, if your concern is to stop the corruption, why focus on Clinton at all? Her record indicates that she is NOT the person to change things. Why not focus on Bernie Sanders, who actually has a consistent record of fighting corporations and the wealthy for his entire career?

Like what you read? Give Bill Michtom a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.