People don’t like to be played, especially when they’ve invested of themselves for a cause, when they’ve talked it up and incrementally “overlooked” those troubling questions.
That’s to be expected I guess as a part of human nature and probably ego as well.
Such has been the case when it came to the American Indian Movement and their poster boy/quasi shield Leonard Peltier – one might argue both are something of a “local” problem, and nowadays that may be true to an extent as support and those highly coveted donations have fallen off.
It’s a horse of an entirely different color though when it comes to elections, especially presidential elections – people should be more attentive, more analytical, and more critical.
In looking at the American Indian Movement an obvious question is where did all the money come from and where did it go?
Well some of it came from the CPUSA, some from a variety of foreign despotic rulers and oppressive governments, and even more bizarre some from the federal government in the form of grants, a lot of it went into offshore accounts and the pockets of “leadership”.
On the surface that alone would be enough to raise questions and hackles among a great many, yet the true Aimsters and Peltierites either don’t care to hear about it or somehow find a way to legitimize it.
This is the kind of attitude that prevails during elections – voting records, history, and outright lies don’t count, and even in the midst of railing about Citizens United and the undue influence of super pac money somehow none of that counts either.
The included list of Hillary Clinton’s speaking engagements and monetary haul should raise a few eyebrows – that is if a person is really concerned about corporate influence in government.
It isn’t just speaking fees but donations to the Clinton Foundation that should be unsettling – there’s a long and sordid history of donors getting a leg up when it comes to legislation, and that’s part of the beauty of the net – it’s all there if you’re willing to sift through the bullshit and double check.
Having done so it becomes a matter of personal integrity in my opinion whether a person will accept what it is or put on a smiley face and blow it off.
There are no perfect candidates any more than perfection can be found in the current version of democracy – taking that into consideration it should become a matter of degrees.
How egregious is an issue, how “flawed” is a candidate? Where do they rank on a scale from one to ten when it comes to being trustworthy?
I never got on the AIM bandwagon as I was willing from the beginning to look beneath the surface – I was a Peltier supporter the result of what I consider to be an us against them mentality knee jerk reaction.
That was short lived though as again I took a deeper look into the myth that was being created for Peltier even though I had made a personal investment.
My thinking was it was far better to admit an error than to continue making one as my concerns are and will remain about the welfare of all our different nations people.
That’s what presidential elections should come down to, a concern for the general welfare that transcends ego and the ability to admit when a persons been hoodwinked.
Peddling influence isn’t a qualification for elected office – nobody gives up this kind of money without expectations, and if those expectations aren’t met the well dries up, it’s that simple – obviously in Hillary’s case her cup runneth over.
The formula has been proven and become well established within the election process, if you find that acceptable when it happens to be your candidate then you have no grounds to complain when it’s another.
If you don’t then you need to raise a little hell and demand some accountability rather than laughing it off when the explanation is that’s what was offered.
I think a woman president could be a good thing for the country, but not just any woman, or for that matter any man.
Hillary is attempting to imply it’s a gender issue and I expect her to ramp that up – it would be a hell of thing to elect a corporatist merely because they also happen to be a woman.
Before all the candidates began announcing I was hoping Elizabeth Warren would enter the race – she opted not to but I’d at least like to see her share the ticket with Sanders.
Hillary is apparently so concerned she’s trotting out former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and feminist Gloria Steinem to essentially declare it is singularly about electing a woman, and any woman who doesn’t agree is suspect.
Is it just me or does that sound sexist in itself? Does sexism only work one way? Is it sexist to imply that women have gravitated to Sanders because ” that’s where the boys are”?
Your future and the future of your children are being sold, that’s something to think about.