Politics Magazine

Why Do Some On The Left Want To Lie About Clinton ?

Posted on the 07 August 2015 by Jobsanger
Why Do Some On The Left Want To Lie About Clinton ?
I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton. I also have a great deal of respect for Bernie Sanders -- and I can understand why many of my progressive brothers and sisters support him for the Democratic nomination. I have said before, and I still believe that we Democrats are lucky this year to have two great candidates. I will support and vote for Clinton, and I urge all other Democrats to vote for the candidate of their choice in the primaries (whoever that might be).
But while I understand why many progressives might want to support Bernie Sanders, there is one thing I really don't understand -- why too many of them feel it is necessary to tell lies about Hillary Clinton.
One place these lies about Clinton show up is when campaign donations are discussed. I have recently heard several Sanders supporters accuse Clinton of being the candidate of Wall Street, while their candidate is the hero of the common man. They point out that Sanders has raised slightly over $15 million, and most of it comes from small donors -- those giving less than $200 (The Guardian places the percentage at about 75%).
That's laudable, and I applaud Sanders for that. But Clinton has also done very well with small donors. She has raised about $46 million in contributions directly to her campaign, and guess what -- about 94% of those donations came in amounts of $250 or less. Hillary Clinton is doing very well with small donors -- better than any other candidate of either party.
These people also point to the fact that about $20 million has been raised for Hillary Clinton among PACs and Super-PACs. That is true. But that certainly does not mean she has "sold out to Wall Street".  Yes, some of that money has come from corporations. They see the way the wind is blowing, and they are throwing some money to the Democrats -- but not nearly as much as they've thrown to GOP candidates (nearly a $100 million to Bush alone -- and we can expect huge dollars to begin flowing to Walker and Rubio now, because they were the big winners at the recent meeting of donors affiliated with the Koch brothers).
But most of that PAC money is coming from rich Democrats (like George Soros, Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, and others) -- people who have long supported Democratic and progressive values, and certainly don't want to continue the failed trickle-down economic policy, or deregulate Wall Street even further (or cut taxes more for the rich).
Has Clinton followed the current campaign funding rules? Yes, and she would be foolish not to do so -- especially since the GOP is rolling in dark PAC money. But we also know she has long supported overturning Citizens United, and returning to a more rational way of funding campaigns.
Let's just stick to the truth, regardless of who your favorite candidate is. Hillary Clinton is NOT the candidate of Wall Street. And most of the money she has raised comes from small donors (60% of them women). That is because, regardless of what some on the left want to think, she is a progressive -- and a Hillary Clinton presidency would be good for the average American, because she supports equal rights and a fairer economy for all.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog