Seems to me it’s kinda like the kiss of death for either Koch to speak positively of any non Republican candidate.
But then when you view the field of conservative candidates maybe it’s a natural progression, something of an inevitability.
Clinton was quick to respond saying in part she isn’t interested in anyone who denies climate change or makes it hard for people to vote.
Hmmm – seems like if that were true she would have something to say about closed primaries that deny Independents their right to vote – guess it’s different though when construed to be favorable.
Climate change is another issue, but her for public consumption statement doesn’t exactly resonate when you consider her corporate donors and their greed above the environment mentality – you know, the fossil fuel boys?
Hillary hasn’t exactly done the “drill baby, drill” thing ala Sarah Palin, she’s a little more politically savvy than Palin, but the positions she’s taken speak to a positional compatibility.
Hillary doesn’t need Koch money, she’s making enough as it what with the paid speeches, campaign and Foundation donations, and whatever ventures she and it are engaged in.
Speaking of the Foundation, Koch money has made it’s way into the Foundation coffers, some will call it philanthropical if that’s the spoon full of sugar that helps the medicine go down.
But isn’t it a little unsettling to know, isn’t it unsettling to know that money from oppressive nations like Saudi Arabia find their way into the coffers as well?
Does the sugar sweeten the reality that money is accepted from a nation that beheads people, will stone a woman to death or beat her with a whip for the “crime” of being raped?
Does it empower women or feminists to know their candidate of choice will turn a blind eye to such things on the basis of money?
Or is it the political two step, the perceived “greater good” of electing a woman, any woman, to the presidency and to hell with the realities?
Like I’ve said – a woman president, not a problem, but if it is to be a woman how about one who can set a new standard by elevating the office?
How about one who isn’t bought and paid for?
Hillary wants the office and she doesn’t give a damn how she goes about obtaining it or who she crawls into bed with. She’s like Golum, it’s her precious.
I don’t feel as though that’s a core value of the women’s movement, maybe I’m wrong though.
I don’t feel as though cozying up to regimes that view women as chattel is a core value of feminists either, maybe I’m wrong about that as well.
Maybe I’m fortunate in that the women I know don’t believe so either.
The global “sisterhood” – is that a selective sisterhood defined by money and political expediency?
Kind of seems like it at times, and if so not much difference between it and the “brotherhood”.