Peter Daou has a problem seeing where the problem really is. Well, that’s to be expected he’s been advising Sec. Clinton for a while and you don’t maintain that job without polishing her image.
Why on earth would Bernie Sanders run a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s public image?
As we’ve written: Hillary let Bernie off the hook in the last debate. She could have asked him a simple question: Does he believe President Obama is corrupt because of financial industry contributions? It’s a yes or no question that is central to the 2016 race.
Does Bernie think President Obama is compromised by Wall Street contributions? If so, he should have the courage to say it. If not, he shouldn’t imply that a female candidate would be influenced by donations or speaking fees. There’s a word for that.
First, Bernie isn’t running a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s public image. He’s running a campaign premised on the fact that Wall Street is running amok and compromising our political system with campaign contributions and lobbying for special treatment. This is also a premise that Sec. Clinton claims to accept but only after millions of Wall Street dollars have poured into her family’s foundation and into Super PACs created to put her into the presidency.
Sanders has built his campaign on fighting Wall Street and and its corrupting influence. Are you, Mr. Daou, suggesting that the Sanders campaign should change their tune just because Sec. Clinton appears to have been corrupted by Wall Streets influence? By the way, that is my question, not Sen. Sanders.
Maybe had she not taken millions of dollars from Wall Street she wouldn’t be in this predicament. Don’t blame Sen. Sanders for Sec. Clinton’s apparent corruption.