“Hillary Clinton has earned at least $12 million in 16 months since leaving the State Department, a windfall at odds with her party’s call to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor.”
BEING WEALTHY doesn’t keep people from working to “shrink the gap between rich and the poor.” Politicians are revealed through the policies they trumpet. Has Bloomberg never heard of Senator Edward Kennedy? Evidently Bloomberg editors have forgotten Franklin D. Roosevelt, as well as his wife Eleanor.
TPM’s David Kurtz calls it “today’s most tendentious lead.”
Working your entire life, only to finally cash in when you’re in your 60s, is being treated like a crime, because Hillary‘s last name is Clinton. There is also a big difference between the tortured comparisons between Mitt Romney‘s directives at Bain Capital, and Hillary Clinton‘s earnings through her book and speeches. A product people purchase freely and didn’t put anyone out of a job, as well as her speaking fees that are being put back into the philanthropic efforts and outreach of CGI, not deposited in shareholders’ hands that enrich only the wealthy.
The cottage industry the Clintons have created around their public personae is already drawing criticism similar to the 2012 attacks on Mitt Romney, the co-founder of private equity firm Bain Capital LLC. Democrats accused the wealthy Republican presidential nominee of being out of touch with voters.
Some Democrats also question how Clinton will appeal to working-class voters and serve as the party’s chief crusader against stagnant wages and the gap between rich and poor, given that she has received millions from financial firms and other corporations.
“These issues of income inequality are important to Democratic voters,” said Josh Orton, political director for Progressives United, a Democratic super-political action committee. “There’s going to be a bit of cognitive dissonance between that kind of fundraising and campaigning on how to fix inequality.”
Now, I know and like Josh Orton, so let me just say that his statement is as regrettable as it is preposterous.
Barack Obama has become the king of fundraising and campaigning, which was sanctioned by the Supreme Court, not the Democratic Party. Pay to play is what the conservative justices set up, so Democrats playing along is hardly setting up anything but a level playing field.
This is where progressive hypocrisy should cause activists to choke. Do they actually expect Democrats to act as if the system isn’t there? That altruism will win in a game rigged for the highest bidder?
Politicians of both political parties are forced to buy their way into the system. Anyone unfamiliar with this fact shouldn’t be in politics. It would be wonderful if overflowing campaign coffers didn’t matter, but they do.
Franklin D. Roosevelt didn’t let his wealth stop him from creating social programs that continue to keep people from starving to death and living on the streets.
Mitt Romney’s policies and the business practices he championed on behalf of his “corporations are people” philosophy are what created “cognitive dissonance” in his 2012 campaign for the presidency. His 47% remark cemented his philosophy of government’s role in people’s lives and scared over half the voters away.
Going back to President Clinton‘s policies that brought the middle class up and raised all boats, as the saying goes, it’s clear that whatever wealth the Clintons have finally amassed, much of it is being used to fix inequality however they can, which happens to extend around the globe.
There is absolutely nothing in Hillary Clinton’s political or diplomatic career that points to any similarity between Mitt Romney’s austerity and privatization policies, best seen through the economic flim-flammery of his vice presidential running mate, Paul Ryan.
Bloomberg doesn’t offer facts today as much as they attempt to mask editorializing with very bad journalism.