Before I say anything else, I should point out a few things: first, I identify as a socialist; second, I’ve been donating to Sanders’ campaign; third, I recently stopped doing that. I’ll explain why shortly.
Now -- like /u/Kanye-2020 above, I looked at the link that you called a "good place to start," and like him I checked the sources (quickly, I admit, and not as thoroughly as I want to. Edit: four hours later, I feel more confident in my judgments on the sources and the posts’ use of and claims about them). I found a lot of stretching of the truth, at lot of outright false claims, and a lot of areas where I disagree. I respond to the post, point by point, below.
First I’ll respond to your comment below, where you say:
I suggest watching the youtube video about Warren and the bankruptcy bill.
That video is misleading and doesn’t tell the whole story:
tl;dr:
Clinton voted for the bill in 2001 after fighting successfully to improve it for women, children and the infirm. She spoke from the floor, saying it was a work in progress, meaning she wasn't happy with it. Warren's characterization of her actions just isn't true.
In 2005, a year after the Warren interview, the bill (which didn't become law in 2001) came to a vote again. This time it lacked the protections and provisions Clinton had fought for. She missed the vote because her husband was in the hospital, but the next day she spoke from the floor and delivered a scathing condemnation of it:
Mr. President, while I strongly believe that Congress should act to fix the problems in our bankruptcy system, I also believe that this bill is misguided and deeply flawed.
This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hardworking people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a ‘‘fresh start. . .’’"
Is that what she would say if she were for sale to the highest bidder or completely in the pocket of Wall St.? She opposed the bill. So the Warren interview isn’t just wrong. It’s out of date. Over and over I see in the media and on reddit that facts are being spun in this way.
Disclaimer: what I wrote below is very, very long because I’m trying to sort out my own feelings about the candidates. I’m trying to flesh out and trust my thinking. Lately I’ve started to believe that the left’s attacks on Clinton are unfair and unwarranted. Mistrust of and distaste for her is reflexive. As a result, articles like this one on the Bill Moyers website and posts like the one you suggested as “a good start” get a hugely positive reception even though they’re filled with, if not outright based on, utter falsehoods or distortions of the record.
Below I’m not trying to convince anyone to like or vote for Clinton. You’ll note that I concede I disagree with her strongly on some things and am disappointed in her on other things. But please also note how many times the guy you cited absolutely twists the record or distorts the sources he cites. I realize this is reddit and nobody gets fact-checked. At the same time, this is a comment that god 28 gildings and, apparently, no serious scrutiny.
1. Takes millions in speaking fees from Wall Street while pretending to speak for the little people1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
What policies has she supported that show her to be a shill for Wall St.? Can you name any? How is Warren Buffet's support a sign that she's "pretending to speak for little people?" Obama took Wall St. money and passed Dodd-Frank.
Moreover, look at the 11 links the guy provided. Here’s an excerpt from one (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/01/16/clinton-record-wall-street-laissez-faire/Z2a3iOsj40wryeRN2iT6qK/story.html):
“She was not a champion of the financial sector, nor was she an antagonist,” said one financial services executive who lobbied her while she was in the Senate. “The financial sector viewed her as neutral. Not helpful, but also not harmful.”
\2. Says she doesn't know what Bernie Sanders means by "the establishment", says she's not a part of it1 2
I don't actually care whether she belongs to "the establishment." So was Eisenhower. So was Carter. It's an accusation without substance.
Moreover, read her interview with Wolf Blitzer, on which the commenter based this claim: Sander apparently said Planned Parenthood endorsed her because she's the establishment. Clinton's response is perfectly reasonable: she said that doesn't make any sense. She's right. It doesn't. PP fights for the poor. They do good work. They're under constant assault from the right. They're not the establishment. So how does their endorsement show anything rotten at work? Clinton is an establishment candidate, but the PP endorsement doesn't show it. Clinton has worked on women's issues. Why wouldn't they endorse her?
Moreover, when directly asked whether she's the establishment, as Sanders claims, her answer is, again, reasonable:
I just don't understand what that means. He's been in Congress. He's been elected to office a lot longer than I have. I was in the Senate for eight wonderful years representing New York. He's been in the Congress for 25. And so I'll let your viewers make their own judgment.
Yes, Sanders is an independent. But he caucuses with democrats and has been in congress for longer than Clinton. Clinton’s answers are completely reasonable.
\3. Transmitted classified intelligence over unsecured channels... 1 2 3 4 5 6
The email scandal and FBI investigation don’t tarnish my view of her. The scandal started as a republican smear campaign, a fishing expedition for something -- anything -- to use against her. And I may be in the minority about this, but I don't think I'd particularly care if she did send or receive classified information or store it on a private server. Are we worried that she is collaborating with the Ruskies?
The use of personal email wasn’t prohibited until 2014, by the way.
See immediately below for the justice department’s statement.
\4. ... then joked during a press conference about wiping her server clean "with a cloth or something" 1
Watch the video. Why shouldn't she tell a joke? It wasn't a deflection. Her point was that she doesn't understand how these things work, which I fully believe (You think she manages her own email server or understands how they work?), and that she and her people exercised their rights to manage her email and then chose to hand over everything. The justice department agrees. They released a statement asserting that, in their view, she acted legally when she deleted emails: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/10/justice-department-rules-hillary-clinton-followed-/:
“There is no question that Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” the administration lawyers argued. “Under policies issued by both the National Archives and Records Administration (‘NARA’) and the State Department, individual officers and employees are permitted and expected to exercise judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record.”
Yet Republicans are now calling for Lynch to step aside and allow a special prosecutor to take over. You know when else they did this? In 1998. Remember Ken Starr?
Again, I just don’t see why the email scandal should tarnish my view of her