Robert Reich wrote:

[elleng]

'According to a Washington Post investigation published today, Bill and Hillary Clinton have raised $3 billion over 4 decades in public life, including at least $69 million from Wall Street banks and investment firms, and early backing from Sam Walton, founder of Walmart. Since 2000, Hillary has raised $29.2 million from Wall Street; so far in the 2016 election cycle she's raised $6.4 million from the Street.

Some say this amount of money from big business and Wall Street inevitably compromises her. Others say she's her own woman regardless of who backs her. What do you think?'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=nf

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Was the Washington post able to uncover illegal activity?

Or is this more MSM desperation?

[Armstead]

2. I think she shares their worldview

People get into bubbles. She spends her time with people who see the world differently than many of us. They sip champagne at Davos, and come up with wonderful ideas how corporate benevolence can change the world, while ignoring the basic inequities that are in the system that is propping them up and allowing therm to sip champagne at Davos.

[Vattel]

6. I think that also applies to her blind spots on foreign policy and military force.

Based on what she says and what she has done, I can only conclude that she is blind to the horrific costs of war. In her little militarist bubble, she has been unable to see that military force is rarely a cost-effective way to build a better world.

Can you imagine how well-liked America would be if we actually focused on international humanitarian aid rather than military force? And being well-liked makes people less likely to want to hurt us.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for having the best armed forces in the world. That deters the use of military force against us and so actually promotes peace.

But regime change and nation-building and killing noncombatants as a side effect of going after terrorists? Give me a break. How about malaria eradication, ensuring that safe drinking water is available to as many as possible, building hospitals, providing disaster relief? With humanitarian aid we can provide nearly certain benefits at a relatively low cost. With the use of military force we so often pursue highly uncertain benefits while inflicting the horrible and certain costs of violence. It's not a rational way to make the world better or even to make us safer.

Call me a dreamer, but I think America could do a lot better.

[Owl]

9. ^This!^

[Snotcicles]

3. What I think is that Bernie Sanders proven that he is the ethically superior candidate. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. "Some say this amount of money from big business and Wall Street inevitably compromises her"

I completely agree with that statement. You don't give that much money and not expect favors in return.

SAM WALTON? Are you effing kidding me? The man who destroyed pretty much every mom and pop store in every little town in this country and she takes money from that greedy rat *astard?

Yes! She's compromised!

[Art_from_Ark]

7. Well, Sam's been dead for 23 years

so he's no longer a donor.

But Alice Walton has made some recent contributions.

[Hiraeth]

5. Makes it really hard for me to define her as a public :servant:

[reformist2]

8. Indeed. She's more like a private mercenary.

[NorthCarolina]

10. The Clinton's are worth over 3 Billion Dollars?

I knew they were rich, but I was kind of thinking "millionaire" -ish. Certainly not "Billionaire" -ish. Who says Government jobs don't pay...

[Metric System]

12. Re-read it. This is not about personal finances.

[wendylaroux]

11. holy shit

how is anyone supposed to beat that much gd money?

[appalachiablue]

13. Robert Reich, what a treasure of info.

[jwirr]

14. I don't think you get that kind of money from anyone

without something in return. Especially from big business and banks. And both her and Bill know it.

[UglyGreed]

15. K/R

[LWolf]

16. I think she's not

the leader that we need.