The Inevitable Hillary Clinton: Corporate Shill, Warmonger, Woman

by William Skink

Hillary Clinton will finally announce she’s running for president tomorrow. There is absolutely no compelling progressive argument for supporting her, but many progressives will because REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL and SHE’S A SHE. That about sums up the arguments that will be deployed in defense of her candidacy.

Many issues will need to be glossed over, ignored and suppressed in order to promote what will surely be a slick PR campaign to artfully bludgeon us with her inevitability, like how Clinton used the State Department to sell fracking to the world (Mother Jones):

ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton’s plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria’s bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read “Stop fracking with our water” and “Chevron go home.” Bulgaria’s parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.

Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the “best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people.” But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania’s parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Depart­ment’s lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania’s parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria’s eased its moratorium.

And for progressives already squeamish about Hillary the corporate shill, it gets worse. Preempting her announcement is news of Clinton changing her position after the Clinton Foundation received money. This is just one example of what is essentially her modus operandi:

For union organizers in Colombia, the dangers of their trade were intensifying. When workers at the country’s largest independent oil company staged a strike in 2011, the Colombian military rounded them up at gunpoint and threatened violence if they failed to disband, according to human rights organizations. Similar intimidation tactics against the workers, say labor leaders, amounted to an everyday feature of life.

For the United States, these were precisely the sorts of discomfiting accounts that were supposed to be prevented in Colombia under a labor agreement that accompanied a recently signed free trade pact liberalizing the exchange of goods between the countries. From Washington to Bogota, leaders had promoted the pact as a win for all — a deal that would at once boost trade while strengthening the rights of embattled Colombian labor organizers. That formulation had previously drawn skepticism from many prominent Democrats, among them Hillary Clinton.

Yet as union leaders and human rights activists conveyed these harrowing reports of violence to then-Secretary of State Clinton in late 2011, urging her to pressure the Colombian government to protect labor organizers, she responded first with silence, these organizers say. The State Department publicly praised Colombia’s progress on human rights, thereby permitting hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to flow to the same Colombian military that labor activists say helped intimidate workers.

At the same time that Clinton’s State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.

The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation — supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself — Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra.

If elected, Hillary Clinton will be a disaster (except for her true constituency, the 1%). That she would be the first woman president is a small consolation considering the potential damage she will inflict. Anyone who thinks she won’t be the same corporate-serving warmonger she’s been throughout her political career is delusional.


  1. The president sits atop the tail of a giant serpent. She can imagine she is in charge, but the serpent can flick her off at will. The position that she is applying for is that of an actor. She is connected, she is corrupt, she is a psychopath. She’s perfect! Perfect! I might even vote for her.

    • You don’t vote.

      • Steve W

        Do you work for the NSA Swede?

      • Swede, Swede – psychopath, connected, and crooked. It’s a trifecta! How can I NOT vote?

  2. JC

    Hillary Clinton is the best candidate democrats could pick to assure that the next president is republican, and has republican majorities in the senate and the house.

    Not that it makes any real difference…

    • JC

      But I’m sure she’ll generate as much excitement among the democrat base as Dukakis or Mondale.

  3. Skipping record.

    “A hand-written page of notes dating to 1994 shows that Hillary Clinton planned to use the same pitch for health reform which would later be dubbed the Lie of the Year after President Obama adopted it to sell Obamacare.

    The 21-year-old memo is like a glimpse of the embryonic form of one of the most breathtaking political lies of the Obama era. Under a heading which reads, “Elements of reassurance,” an unidentified staffer wrote, “If you like your Blue Cross you can keep your BC.” And below that a note extending this claim to Aetna, Prudential, and any similar insurer.”-Breibart

    • steve kelly

      All originated, scored and packaged at Heritage Foundation long before Hillarycare. Heritagecare first became Romneycare in Mass.

      “Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.” James Taranto (2011) writes the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web” column. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/

      • Heritage may as well invented it but not one Republican voted for it.

        • steve kelly

          That was not necessary, now was it?

          • i’m just getting started.

            ” Hillary, who charges $300,000 to give a lousy speech; who claimed to have been “dead broke” after eight years in the White House; who hasn’t driven a car since the 1990s; and who promises to spend more money than any political candidate, ever.”-Powerline

            • JC

              The Daily Beast:

              “Bush’s standard speaking fee is reportedly between $100,000 and $150,000.

              David Sherzer, a spokesman for the former president, said that since Bush left office he has delivered nearly 140 paid talks [the article was published in May 2011], at home and abroad. Those speeches have earned Bush about $15 million, following in the golden path blazed by his predecessor, Bill Clinton.”

              They’re all corrupt. Obama will probably get more for speeches than either Clinton or Bush. It’s just the payoff for being yes-men or yes-women.

              • Swede reflexively reverts to the party animal mindset. It is bred into us from birth, and cannot be overcome.

  4. Turner

    Elizabeth Warren has been making the rounds on TV. I know some here dislike/mistrust her. But in her appearances she makes Hillary look very small and very shallow in comparison. Too bad she’s not running — this time.

    After 4 years of Bush, she could be a winner in 2020.

    • Steve W

      Jill Stein looks to be running Turner.

      Warren isn’t running.

      • JC

        Have you seen the Green Shadow Cabinet?

        I would hope that Stein would use it to its best advantage as a launching pad. But I’m not sure that it is succeeding…

        • Steve W

          They seem to have an emailing list but no on the ground presence.

  5. Candidates are bribed, legally and otherwise. Dark money can come in at any time and sway an election. Even if candidates lie about their intent, as Tester did, you vote them back in because you are so scared of the other party.

    To top it off, we can’t even be sure votes are counted accurately, as there is no accountability in the tallying system. It is very easy to hack a vote, and there is no way to undo it once done, as there are no paper records.

    But yeah, is see the importance of voting.

  6. Eric

    I’m not convinced she’s the inevitable Dem nominee – we’ll have to wait and see who throws their hat in the ring.

    I’m hoping she’s the Dem nominee – as she can campaign on her many accomplishments, like the way she skillfully handled diplomatic crisis in the middle East, all the major legislative initiatives she got rolling as a Senator, and her personal triumphs against being the most-wronged wife in Washington DC since Jackie Kennedy.

    I’m sure she would truly have a transparent administration (unlike the Obama regime) because following the rules has always been important to the Clintons.

    Plus – she’s a WOMAN ! It’d be a historical precedent !

    Go Hillary !

    • lizard19

      did you know neoconservatives like her foreign policy?

    • Bernays, Lippmann and others operated on the principle that the people are not capable of managing their own affairs. They are uneducated, uninformed, emotional and prone to change based on short-term outcomes. So politics was devised to keep them occupied and at the same time keep them out of the way. Elections are a giant distraction.

      I have to say, I agree with that notion. It appears to be the case, and Eric is a typical voter, that people are basically clueless about national affairs, much less international.

      But the alternative, to have government for and by elite interests, does not seem to work any better. This led Bertrand Russell to conclude that the ONLY advantage of representative government is that it forces old people out and brings new ones in.

      But that does not seem to happen … That is, we don’t really have opposing parties, and so are not really changing heads. So even Russell was wrong about our prospects.

      But voting matters, right?

  7. SNL.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Angry vet 88 on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Washing Ton on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Angry vet 88 on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Angry vet 88 on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Breakdown Assistance on A visit from a Montana Na…
    Even more ICYMI camp… on The Montana Republican Party B…
    Jon Tester’s G… on Senator Tester Backs Wall Stre…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,640,473 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • April 2015
    S M T W T F S
    « Mar   May »
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    2627282930  
  • Categories


%d bloggers like this: