I am posting articles critical of the Clintons and their hold on the Democratic Party because of our own union's -- the AFT/UFT/NYSUT complicity in these policies. As pointed out yesterday (How Education Reform Ate the Democratic Party - Clintons Led the Way in Attack on Teacher Unions), the union was a partner with the Clintons and Obama in ed deform - until it got to be so heavy they began to push back. But it is not just on education, it is also about allowing big money to control the Party and lead to its policies. Thus you will never see the UFT/AFT etc go after big money and corporate interests other than to support taxes on the rich --- which is meaningless without educating people -- like using the commercials on TV, etc -- about exactly they are affected.
...if the Clintons had agreed to go off into a normal post-presidency instead of holding Democrats hostage in an emotionally abusive relationship for 16 more years, or if Democratic voters had insisted that they do so - that would have been decidedly more convenient for the party. There would probably be a Democratic president right now - maybe even a female one.
The Clintons held the Democratic Party hostage for 2 decades — and the sudden revisionism is inconveniently late.... The Clinton model of doing good should be an uncomfortable one for the left - one in which extremely wealthy people and countries with questionable human-rights records come together and freely give their money away to further their agendas and burnish their reputations, convincing one another all the while that concentrations of wealth can be a good thing so long as the wealthy are civic-minded. ..... Business Insider
This article came in from Michael Fiorillo and talks about the not only the covered up Bill Clinton sex scandals but the big money interests. One mistake in this is calling Monica Lewinsky an intern which she wasn't -- she was an employee of the White House - but still -- Clinton was just dumb. But not too dumb when it came to money.
Some excerpts from the Josh Baro article.
The Clintons forced Democrats to be the party of big-money interests
The Clinton Foundation, as we have been reminded ad nauseam by the Clintons' advocates, is an international philanthropy that does really valuable work. It has to be - it wouldn't work as a vehicle to build the Clintons' profile and international business connections if it were a pure Trump-style scam.
The Foundation provided little direct material benefit to the Clintons (save as a place to warehouse Sidney Blumenthal when he couldn't get a job in the Obama administration). But it meshed well with Teneo Group, a consultancy built on monetizing Bill Clinton's global connections for profit.
And you might ask, what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't the Clintons get very rich while they did good for the world? Didn't they deserve it? Believe me, their defenders asked these questions constantly - and indignantly.
After finishing her service as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made a set of decisions that would put Democrats in the ridiculous position of having to argue that it was appropriate and normal to spend a two-year hiatus before your presidential campaign giving high-dollar speeches to interest groups.
Bill Clinton, Hillary revisionism not conveniently timed for Democrats
- Many liberals and Democrats have begun a reckoning in recent days of Bill Clinton's presidency and the Clintons' domination of Democratic politics for the past two decades.
- It would have been much more convenient for Democrats to have rid themselves of the Clintons years ago.