<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n I watched Hillary\u2019s slick ad announcing her 2016 presidential campaign. If you haven\u2019t seen it, you can watch it here.<\/a>\u00a0Left writer and thinker Paul Street<\/a> summed it up in a recent Facebook comment:<\/p>\n This is about as disingenuously fake-progressive as a candidacy announcement could be. A very slick production, combining a subtle undercurrent of pretend populism with less subtle appeals to racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender identity.<\/p>\n Still, the very Wall Street-friendly Hillary’s late entrance claiming to care that “the deck is stacked for those at the top” (or whatever the exact words were) is stiff and unconvincing. She just doesn’t have the magic and flair for the campaign trail, for the “manipulation of populism by elitism” that the formerly left [Christopher] Hitchens once identified as “the essence of American politics.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s just start with this. When Bill Clinton was in office, Hillary and Bill functioned as a powerful political team. She was intimately involved in, and approved\u00a0of, his administration\u2019s policy decisions. If and when she becomes president, we will get the same team. So let\u2019s look at their record together, her record as a previous presidential candidate, and her record as a senator.<\/p>\n First of all, Hillary is no friend of children and families in need.<\/strong>\u00a0In 1996,\u00a0with Hillary’s encouragement<\/a>, Bill Clinton signed a\u00a0bill that\u00a0destroyed the major federal program to help poor people and poor families\u2014Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Seventy percent on that program were children. Thanks to the Clintons, poor children have dropped off the radar.<\/p>\n In a 2013 article in Dissent Magazine<\/a>, Fred Block and Frances Fox Piven describe what happened to the poor under the Clintons:<\/p>\n The new legislation completely eliminated the AFDC program along with the entitlement to assistance that it had created, and replaced it with a new program called \u201cTemporary Aid to Needy Families\u201d that was administered at the state level, with substantial federal restrictions on how the money was to be spent. The program imposed a strict five-year time limit on welfare receipt, and states were encouraged (with both carrots and sticks) to set even more stringent limits. The biggest incentive was a guaranteed fixed-block grant from the federal government; if they moved recipients off the rolls, states could repurpose the grant funds to pay for other things. Now monies that once went to poor moms in the form of welfare checks go to for-profit companies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is just one example of what corporate Democrats like the Clintons have done to destroy the progressive legacy of the Democratic Party.<\/p>\n Hillary\u2019s Goldman-Sachs problem.<\/strong><\/a> In Bill\u2019s administration, Hillary was equally close to the action on economic policy. Ex-Goldman chairman, Robert Rubin, and his protege Lawrence Summers, were the people in the Clinton administration who deregulated Wall Street, a direct cause of the economic meltdown of 2008 and the misery that followed. Hillary Clinton was in full support of Bill signing the Wall Street friendly legislation that led to the Great Recession\u2014the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the Financial Services Modernization Act, which gutted Glass-Steagall. Rubin was also the architect of NAFTA, and other job killing trade deals.<\/p>\n No surprise that Goldman has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. In 2013, Hillary, who carried water for Wall Street as a senator, gave\u00a0two paid speeches<\/a>\u00a0to Goldman Sachs audiences at around $200,000 a pop.<\/p>\n Hillary\u2019s buddies at Goldman hardly exemplify the values and principles she puts forward in her ad. In 2011, a senate investigative report concluded that Goldman had misled clients by selling complicated securities to customers that were secretly designed to fail.<\/p>\n The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s<\/a> report also described Goldman as a first-class predator. It described the firm as knowingly peddling junk to suckers who trusted them. One expert compared Goldman’s wheeling-and-dealing to “buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”<\/p>\n Last year, the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0reported that Goldman Sachs and other financial firms conspired to rig the aluminum market, <\/a>costing consumers billions of dollars, and adding to the burden of already struggling middle-class families.<\/p>\n Remember, these\u00a0are Hillary’s friends.<\/p>\n A year ago Hillary gave a policy speech at the New America Foundation in DC, <\/a>where she talked about the financial plight of Americans who \u201care still barely getting by, barely holding on, not seeing the rewards that they believe their hard work should have merited. She talked about the \u201cshadow-banking system\u201d that caused the financial crisis. No surprise, she sounded a lot like Elizabeth Warren, because at that time Warren was seen as a threat to her candidacy. Yet she has very deep ties to Wall Street CEOs who will fund her campaign.<\/p>\n This is the cynical side of politics. She has to sound populist to get elected and Wall Street knows that, which is\u00a0why you have to take what she says, how ever well-written and passionately delivered, with a grain of salt. The proof will be in who she brings into her administration, her actual policies, and who those policies serve.<\/p>\n On foreign policy and national security.<\/strong> One of my worst fears about Hillary is her simpleminded, warmongering attitude toward the rest of the world, and her unthinking dedication to the perpetuation of U.S. economic and military hegemony. During the 2008 presidential primary, the Guardian quoted her comments on Iran:<\/a><\/p>\n “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n My question is: What kind of human being talks about \u201ctotally obliterating\u201d another country? And what will she do when she is \u201ccommander-in-chief, when she will have the power to do so?\u201d<\/p>\n No surprise that after becoming a senator, Hillary voted for the Iraq war. Since then, she has worked tirelessly to build her cred as a hawk. As Doug Henwood writes at Harper’s:<\/a><\/p>\n She backed an escalation of the Afghanistan war, lobbied on behalf of a continuing military presence in Iraq, urged Obama to bomb Syria, and supported the intervention in Libya. As Michael Crowley wrote in Time,<\/em> \u201cOn at least three crucial issues \u2014 Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid \u2014 Clinton took a more aggressive line than [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHillary\u2019s ad vs. her record<\/h2>\n