By now, we’ve all heard the complaints of Bernie Sanders’ supporters about Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees and her campaign’s acceptance of corporate and Wall Street donations.
As a Bernie Sanders supporter, I have a hard time believing that someone who accepts such sums is not somehow compromised. Clinton and her supporters claim it has never affected her positions. Senator Elizabeth Warren and others disagree. We’ve all heard the arguments.
I often wonder if Clinton supporters, when presented with evidence of the company she keeps, ever question their support for her. It’s too early for the “lesser of two evils” argument to go into effect (and that can help rationalize away many uncomfortable things after the primaries are over) so, how do they do it?
Clinton supporters, how do you do it. If, as I’ve recently been told by one of her followers,
You're supporting a candidate that has no path to victory. I’d recommend hanging onto your money until after Super Tuesday. Maybe then you'll see the bigger picture and realize that Hillary is going to win and that there is nothing you can do to stop it.
If this is true (and with 3/50 of the states having voted, representing about 2.5% of the population, I am not even close to being ready to concede as much) maybe I should start thinking about how to make my peace with it. As I mentioned, the “lesser of two evils” argument is powerful, but it has worn thin with me. Besides, I can always follow Molly Ivins’ rule from 2000 and vote my conscience since I live in a safely “blue” state. So how can I overlook the company she keeps? How, at this early stage, can I rationalize the money she gets from Wall Street? (We’ll start slow and bring up Kissinger at a later date).