Is Hillary's Move To The Left All A Big Act?

Hillary's outburst several days ago may have been incited by the stress of having to keep concealed her actual Neoliberal agenda - plus fend off Bernie's criticisms.

On the eve of the Wisconsin primary it was disheartening to learn that Hillary's "moves to the left" may all be cosmetic and not anything she can be held to during or after the general election. This may also be one reason she's so eager to ditch Benie Sanders as a campaign foe, since it will allow her to pivot to the right more quickly.

The recent outburst of Hillary during an interlude on a college campus in New York, was sobering as well as instructional. Let us also point out the Greenpeace activist who asked if she'd adhere to an environmental pledge was not a Bernie supporter. She was acting as a rep of Greenpeace only, but since the corpora-media often conflates progressive organizations with Bernie's campaign, it is easy to see why many made this error.

But what occurred to me on seeing the confrontation many times on TV, is that the stress may be getting to Hillary and wearing down her hitherto strong 'armor' in conveying the 'strong candidate' appearance. I have suspected for some time, in fact, that Hill doesn't hold her new positions sincerely, i.e. on TPP, or the Keystone pipeline, but only adopted them to try to weaken Bernie's left flank.  If that is the case, psychological stress would naturally factor in given holding a position conflicting with one's actual beliefs leads to the condition of bad faith, first described by Jean -Paul Sarte in his Being and Nothingness.

The holding of a bad faith position out of expediency over time, as HRC has done, eats away at one's confidence, ethical posture as well as judicious temper. It is somewhat like gobbling a bucket of fried chicken with a 2"gallstone and hundreds of smaller ones, ready to wreak havoc. In short it can't be sustained over long. Add in additional pressure, as in being criticized hard for taking from Wall Street and not signing an environmental pledge the other Dem candidates did, and there is the making of a partially psychotic breakdown.

Now, some may contend Hillary really is 'all in' to her recently embraced leftward positions, but according to syndicated Bloomberg columnist Pam Dwyer, this is not the case, and we are all being played.  In her recent article ('Has Sanders Moved Clinton To The Left?',  Denver Post, April 3, p, 5D) Dwyer argues forcefully than "an analysis of her speeches, debates and white papers shows she's been a careful tactician"

Thus, "on issue after issue she's left an escape hatch and deliberately omitted saying things that might cause voter whiplash later".  This is when she moves back to the right, or as today's yapping media fools portray it, "to the center" (not realizing or appreciating that today's "center" is the new right).

Hence, it makes sense Hillary would flip out when pressed on the legitimacy of her positons, including on climate change and rejecting fracking (which I admit, has only gone into a abeyance because of the plummeting cost of oil.)

Dwyer's take is that once Clinton clinches the nomination she will flip back to the "center". This means reneging on all or most of the claims, promises made while under pressure from Sanders. Of course, this is all the more reason Sanders needs to stay in and play whatever hand he's dealt. The longer he stays in, including bargaining for leverage using his supporters and delegates at the Convention in Philly, the better the chance of keeping Hillary honest - while shortening the time for voters to forget her promises.

As Dwyer puts it:

"Call it political expediency or call it smart politics, but surprisingly little of Clinton's primary strategy will require her to do an embarrassing about face for the general election.'

So no wonder she lost it when confronted by the Greenpeace activist. She knew she was being called out on a promise that she couldn't keep and no intention to even put on her radar to create more pressure.

Wisconsin tomorrow will show the extent to which voters there will continue to fall for the political charade, or make a stand - enabling Bernie to continue to the Convention with significant leverage to at least keep Hillary honest.

See also:
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/04/hillary_is_sick_of_the_left_why_bernies_persistence_is_a_powerful_reminder_of_clintons_troubling_centrism/

Hillary Blows A Gasket In SUNY Confrontation With Environmental Activist

Hillary loses it when confronted by a Greenpeace activist about money received from fossil fuel lobbyists, CEOs and the like.

It isn't often anyone can rip the façade of smiley from the "front runner's" face, but one Greenpeace environmental activist did today. She confronted HRC on the State University Of New York campus in Purchase, NY about getting moola from the fossil fuelers. As one salon.com description put it, the smile instantly mutated to a scowl (snarl?)  as Hill laid into the impudent girl who had the temerity to ask: "Will you act on your word to reject fossil fuel money in the future in your campaign?”

Well, as Bajans might joke "Who tol' she to say dat?" Hillary let loose, blasting her: "

"I do not — I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies!"

Adding:

"I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me,”

As she pointed her finger at the shocked Millennial activist, who merely ventured to ascertain whether Hill was in or out of the frackers' pockets, the cameras flashed - catching her with facial defenses down.

Of course, the bit about Sanders's' campaign lying is  misdirection. While the activist asked if Clinton would  reject fossil fuel money overall (and recall as Secretary of State she actively promoted global fracking), Hillary's response implied she'd not received any, period. But Greenpeace has detailed her many connections, e.g.  so she's not totally honest.  What Hillary deftly did is make a misleading distinction between the fossil fuel companies-corporations and the individuals tied to them. But the point is, you're still taking money from them - whether it's a person, or a company. And also, if money is taken from a lobbyist for an industry, that is effectively taking money from the industry since lobbyists represent the face of industries, i.e. in dispensing campaign largesse.

Had her campaign received money directly from fossil fuel companies it would have violated election law, but under the Citizens United ruling, campaigns CAN get the money from individuals and super PACS.

 Mother Jones revealed in a July expose , that "nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions to Clinton's campaign have come from the fossil fuel industry."

Environmental news website Grist has also shown how Clinton rakes in money from fossil fuel interests. The outlet notes that her campaign does not receive money directly from fossil fuel companies; rather, she “is getting a lot of money from fossil fuel executives and lobbyists acting as bundlers (fundraisers who collect donations) who represent fossil fuel companies.”


One is left to wonder, if all the gung-ho gender -backers for Hillary - prepared to blind themselves to her flaws just to "put the first woman in the White House" -   will be as ecstatic when fracking drill sites open up in their middle class neighborhoods and their kids suffer from asthma as well as skin rashes and nosebleeds. Will they blame Hill for rewarding the fossil fuelers for their largesse,  or just chirp: "You go girl!"

We will see!