The language here is a bit weaselly. The "innuendo" was Bernie highlighting HRC's secret paid Wall Street speeches, a major campaign issue.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Bernie of course campaigned against corporate influence in politics generally, which is frankly intuitive and backed by empirical data.
Show this thread -
To my knowledge Bernie never stated or implied that Wall Street bought a vote or position from HRC. Just that she was cozy with banks.
Show this thread -
(Incidentally, HRC once promised to release those speech transcripts, but never did. The most damning excerpts later appeared in Wikileaks.)
Show this thread -
In her book HRC is almost certainly referring to the Feb. 4 debate in New Hampshire. The relevant part is at 24:45. https://youtu.be/UhVGAZz-EwQ?t=24m45s …
Show this thread -
In full, here's HRC's challenge to Bernie to name a position she changed due to a donation and his response. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/transcript-of-the-democratic-presidential-debate.html …pic.twitter.com/66sUeDJMj6
Show this thread -
It is true that Bernie doesn't name one, but that was never the charge to begin with.
Show this thread -
Bernie says that in HRC's career she's hoovered up money from Wall Street, drug companies, and special interests. That's demonstrably true.
Show this thread -
Through omission HRC implies that only transparent acts of bribery, getting a big dollar sign sack to change a vote, are pernicious.
Show this thread -
But HRC obviously elides that one's positions to begin with can be driven by campaign donations. No flip flopping needed.
Show this thread -
A more enlightening exchange came at the 2nd debate, where HRC shamelessly invoked 9/11 to justify sucking up donations from Wall Street.pic.twitter.com/sWh8xAfKDL
Show this thread -
Obviously HRC's criticisms of Bernie are self-serving and absolutely disingenuous. But I don't think they're insincere.
Show this thread -
The Clintons are inveterate influence-peddlers and meritocrats who intuit that wealthy interests wield power in society and think it proper.
Show this thread -
What one might consider normalized bribery, they (and virtually all of the DC establishment) consider a proper state of affairs.
Show this thread -
So to Clintonites if you object to Wall Street's tentacular power over society you're a malcontent. That's just the way things ought to be.
Show this thread -
The acceptable "far left" position is some folks should pay a little more in taxes. Full stop. Both Obama and Trump campaigned on this.
Show this thread -
(Obama suggesting it's pragmatic medicine, Trump using it to demonstrate his independence from his "hedge fund friends.")
Show this thread -
But to HRC if you have the temerity to say that the policy preferences of financial elites should be disregarded, this is unacceptable.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.