Clinton: I Cannot Be Part Of The “Establishment” As A Woman Running For President







I have found the Democratic debates really interesting to watch. For the first time in my lifetime, these debates actually have some substance and drama. There was a couple of interesting moments last night, including the suggestion by Hillary Clinton that it is out of bounds for Sanders to raise the money that she has taken from Wall Street as a “smear.” I thought that Clinton did a good job on various points with strong responses, including the progressive label issue.  However, one of the most intriguing moments was Clinton saying that it was ridiculous to call her the “establishment” candidate because she is a woman. For many, the Clintons are the personification of the establishment with huge donors, PACs, control of the DNC, and a massive political machine. Even the Washington Post responded with “Come on” to the suggestion that she is not the ultimate establishment candidate.  Yet, Clinton’s point is that she is also the trying to become the first woman president and thus must be considered an outsider candidate. It seemed to resonate with the crowd, though Sanders appears to have tied Clinton in a national poll despite an concerted campaign from Democratic leaders and politicians aligned with Clinton. I thought it would make for an interesting discussion on the blog.

Here is the exchange:

Sanders: “I will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton has the support of far more Governors, Senators, Mayors, members of the House. She has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. That’s a fact. I don’t deny it. I’m pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks a piece.”

Clinton: “I’ve got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me as a woman running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment.”

While I certainly understand her point and that women remain underrepresented in politics, it is also true that many of the most powerful folks in Washington are women. Indeed around the world, women are the increasingly prominent like Angela Merkel, Melinda Gates, Janet Yellen, Mary Barra, Christine Lagarde, Dilma Rousseff, Sheryl Sandberg, Susan Wojcicki, Park Geun-hye, Oprah Winfrey, Ginni Rometty, Meg Whitman, Indra Nooyi, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Irene Rosenfeld, Ana Patricia Botín, Abigail Johnson, Marillyn Hewson and others. In Congress, there were ranked by CQ:

Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.)
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Was.)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cynthia M. Lummis (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.)
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.)
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Ia.)
Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.)
Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah)
Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.)

Again, none of this means that women are adequately represented. Moreover, I think that there remains sexism in how some people view women in power, particularly in seeking the highest office in the land. However, is it still fair game to say that Clinton cannot be the symbol of the establishment because she is a woman? It may turn on the meaning of what the “establishment” is in politics.

What do you think?

161 thoughts on “Clinton: I Cannot Be Part Of The “Establishment” As A Woman Running For President”

  1. Speaking of ‘isms’,…

    “…capitalism is not an “ism” at all; just don’t get too obsessed by the word. Sometimes words become too important to us and we tend to forget the reality.

    Capitalism is not an ideology; it is not imposed on the society, it is a natural growth. It is not like communism, or fascism, or socialism — these are ideologies; they have to be imposed. Capitalism has come on its own. In fact, the word “capitalism” has been given by the anticapitalist thinkers: the communists, the socialists and others. Capitalism is a state of freedom; that’s exactly why I am in support of it. It allows you all kinds of freedoms. Communism will not allow you all kinds of freedoms; communism will give you only one ideology to believe in — there is no question of choice.

    I am reminded of Henry Ford….
    When he made his first model, those cars were only made in one color — black. And he himself used to take the customers round his showroom; he would go around with them and show them the cars. He used to say to people, “You are free to choose any color, provided it is black!”

    That’s exactly the attitude of communism: you are free to choose any ideology, any philosophy, any religion, provided it is communism. In a communist society there is no hope for a multidimensional humanity to grow; it can allow only a certain type to grow: it is linear. You cannot conceive that in a communist pattern even Karl Marx would be possible; he would not be allowed. You cannot conceive a Jesus, a Buddha, a Krishna, or a Lao Tzu being born in a communist society; they would be destroyed at the very beginning.

    Before the Russian revolution, Russia produced the greatest novelists in the world.

    Before the revolution, Russia passed through an immense period of creativity; it was almost an explosion. Nowhere else, in no other time, were so many great artists born together: Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Anton Chekhov, Maxim Gorky, Turgenev, and many more. What happened to all that creativity after the Russian revolution? Not a single Tolstoy, not a single Dostoevsky, not a single Maxim Gorky has appeared. It is impossible, because the government directs you about what to write, what not to write.

    The bureaucracy dictates everything. You cannot paint according to your own heart, you cannot sing the song that you want to sing; you have to dance to the tune that the government plays. Naturally, only mediocre people have been happy in Russia.
    Untalented people will find it very good, but talented people, who are the salt of the earth, will be retarded.

    Communism is an “ism”; capitalism is not an “ism.” Capitalism is simply a natural phenomenon that has come on its own. There are no capitalist philosophers, there is no capitalist party, there is no capitalist economy which has been enforced on people; it is a growth.

    Rather than looking at the reality you have become distracted by the word “capitalism.” It simply means a state of LAISSEZ-FAIRE, a state of freedom where one is allowed to be himself. Capitalism is not an “ism” but a natural state of society which is capable of producing capital, which is capable of producing wealth.”

    – Osho

    1. Yes, humans do tend to categorize and name everything.

      You are correct and those from the Austrian school of economic study use the term statist or statism as a general term to fit the isms and separate capitalism from that group. Words and terms are important only to the extent that they can help us communicate better. One of the things that I have found to be true, is that those who subscribe to devious agendas will often try to blur the definitions of words and terms to make it harder to communicate. My favorite is the phrase “classical liberal” which once meant, one who believes in laissez-faire has been high jacked by the gatekeepers of the communist/socialist movement. Liberals today are considered socialists or communists by many. The term “gatekeeper” is used by Thomas DiLorenzo in his book Lincoln Unmasked, denoting those that continue to try to hide the truth about what Lincoln and his devious Republican cronies did during the Civil War.

      I read something recently about rights being the ability to protect what you have justly acquired. Obviously you would then have the right to acquire something as long as you do it in a just manner.

      It is also interesting to note the three aspects of words and terms. 1. common usage by the general public, 2. legal terms and then 3. academic. Someone once told me the difference between a word and term is a word is general usage and terms are for legal usage. Don’t know if this is true.

      My favorite example of the difference between words and terms is rectum. From Black’s Law meaning a right, trial or accusation. Quite a bit different than the common usage. It is my rectum to live where ever I want as long as I justly acquire the property. That’s funny. It’s derivation is Latin.

      1. hskiprob Speaking of words, you write very well and if you’re able to enlighten previously in the dark people to the crimes of the IRS as you stated, you also have the gift of gab if I might put it so plainly. Personally it takes effort to tactfully tell someone that their beloved news is nothing but lies and deception. People hate thinking they’ve been duped. The ego won’t allow it and managing to NOT inflame someone’s ego can take can take an act of God.

        I love words and one of my favorite pastimes in looking words up in the dictionary. It’s my opinion that books should be in every room of your domain. And yes, we are both viscerally aware of how words are used to steer the narrative towards what the power possessors want it to be. And what do they want? Compliant ignorant slaves. What else? And not too many of them, so a few (million) might need to be eliminated. Nothing to it when the medical, media, government, legal, land ownership, environmental, industrial, military, tax system, money supply, etc. is at your service – bought by the highest bidder.

        One of my best friends just moved to Equador after fighting the IRS and the State Board of Equalization for many years over unconstitutional unpaid taxes. They took his social security and he got it back. He fought the good fight and made great progress but in the end after they took his medical license and driver’s license he decided to just LEAVE.

        This is a fun video. Over 5,000,000 views!
        Mountain Man arrested for trying to feed himself, owns judge and walks out (fixed)

        I tried to post this comment before and it didn’t go through although I can find nothing that would kick it out so here goes again…

        1. Thanks Hildegard. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. You too. I really like the folks like you on Jonathan’s blog. Most everyone is cordial and bright.

  2. hskiprob “If they can’t enslave the majority physically anymore, they do it economically through the various social policies. ”

    Speaking of slavery, as you state very little has changed in ‘10,000 years’ of human history/misery. Most of us are operating under the illusion that we’re an ‘advanced’ civilization and that slavery went out with the dark ages. It’s very shocking to face that this IS ‘the dark ages’,

    “Goldman and other were shorting the very CDOs that had sold off to investors. Who cares about the millions foreclosed on. ”

    You may have heard of Greg Smith the Goldman Sachs whistleblower? He left after 12 years saying he couldn’t believe how evil the company had become.

    Are you aware of the case of Thomas Deegan? This will get you started if you’re unaware of his case.

    Later, and thanks for the encouragement.

  3. stevegroen, “…but what you’re driving at is unabashed human competition against one another,..”

    The only thing I’m “driving at” is what the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights prescribe.

    Freedom and Self-Reliance.


    “Capitalism” is a Marxist pejorative. Free enterprise is what the Constitution facilitates and induces. Competition is good for the consumer. It creates higher quality at the lowest prices.

    Capitalism is a word in the lexicon of control. Under the Constitution, the government doesn’t use the term “capitalism” because the government does not control people or industry – it facilitates freedom and free enterprise.

    Charity is an honorable pursuit that is NOT mandated by the Constitution. Pity and generational “assistance” does not motivate or incentivize parasitic freeloaders. The free market charity industry of the private sector is vigorous and flourishing.

    You have a right to think and say whatever you want but no one in this country has the right or authority to nullify the right to private property by taking private property from one man and giving that private property to another man.

    Government has an innate right, before government is established, to tax for usual and customary governmental operations.

    Government under the Constitution has no authority to redistribute wealth. It has the authority for Justice, Tranquility, Common Defence and Promotion of General Welfare (roads, water, electricity utilities, post office, etc.). General being items that all people use in the same amounts.

    Redistribution of wealth is only mandated or allowed by the Communist Manifesto.

    The Constitution does not provide for any of the following:

    Central Planning
    Control of the Means of Production
    Social Engineering
    Redistribution of Wealth

    Those are the principles of communism.

    It is the highest of crimes and misdemeanors and the worst kind of treason that has implemented these principles of communism in America over the last 150 years.

    1. John that was very good. Our founding fathers had learned from millenniums of authoritarian rule that central planning only really benefits the ruling oligarchs and their cronies. Judges where just their rubber stamps and many died, where tortured and incarcerated unjustly with their decisions. This is surely happening again, as had the greater and greater usurpations of individual rights. I should not have to give you some of the examples of the various case rulings showing this.

      However, believing that any group can orchestrate a civil society by political means, has always ended in failure. The USA is the best example because it was clearly set up to restrain government activities and scope by protecting individual property rights.

      Of course I would prefer living in a pre-civil war America then post, excluding government mandated slavery of blacks only being valued at a percentage of a white person. The world was slowly weaning itself off of slavery so I believe the Civil War did much more harm than good.

      Our social losses were the Right to Succeed. The writ of habeous corpus was suspended by the decision of one man (Lincoln) and enforced by his military officers. People even in the North were killed and maimed by their own government. The income tax, an unconstitutional mandate was enacted. Oppressive tariffs were enacted. Fugitive slaves laws were enacted by the Republicans in the north. Northern newspapers apposed to the war were even shut down by military and police force.

      Lincoln and his cronies used tax money to fund corporate welfare; railroad expansion and were participating in corruption by buying land (Alledgedly speculation) and than selling it back to the railroads they subsidies by the increased tariffs on the southern farmers. The beneficiaries of the higher tariffs where the northern industrialist who just so happened to be the cronies of the Republican Party who were pushing for the higher tariffs. They now could buy the southern crops at cheaper prices, gaining greater profits.

      As Stevegroen says it all about the economics; follow the money. Politics has always been a pay to play game and the banksters and their cronies almost always win. Almost all legislation is to benefit the special interests at the expense of everyone else and the banksters help finance their activities; to control as much of the means of productions as possible. Since the fiat printing press was activated, they pretty much own it all. FYI; Trumps one of them.

      Of course the ruling oligarchs package and promote the social policies as being beneficial to the majority (with the help of Marxist philosophy) but many people and many economists can and have seen through their memes.

      Government by it’s nature intervenes in the market, distorting the results to the benefits of special interests. Rarely does this benefit the majority. How can force and coercion benefit the majority when it is used to extract more and more money out of them.

      Stevegroen. You asked me how we would fund national defense. How free enterprise would handle this is like asking how free enterprise works. People use voluntary associations to build and produce everything that is of value in our world. We’re just paying for it sometimes in the wrong manner. We need to be paying for it, not by force and coercion and the redistribution of wealth, because we have seen in just two hundred years how this has worked out for the majority. Believing that the wealthy will not pay to defend their wealth and possessions is nonsense. Our revolutionary war is an example. If it weren’t for the various militias and privateers we would not have won the revolution, nor would it most likely even have begun.

      You must understand what a militia and privateers are. They are both Citizens acting in voluntary associations. Militias by land, privateers for the sea. The privateers would capture British ships, restock or rearm them if necessary and go out to capture more British ships. Of course the government started prohibiting the use of privateers after the War of 1812 and thus started the foundation to our current military industrial complex which now costs us $600,400,000,000 annually. A privateer costs us nothing. Just think that our entire Federal Government budget was only $314,000,000,000 in 1950.

      1. hskiprob – the Republicans got rid of the Fugitive Slave Law, which had been passed in 1850, and basically freed slaves captured by Union forces. Prior to that, some Union generals were, under the Fugitive Slave Act, returning slaves to their owners.

    2. Competition is healthy from the perspective of the employer, not the employee. When you make the employee the employer, then competition is healthy for everyone.

      What we’ve got now under crony capitalism is financial success or death, not healthy competition.

    You have 2 cows.
    You give one to your neighbor.

    You have 2 cows
    The State takes both and gives you some milk.

    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both and sells you some milk.

    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other and then throws the milk away.

    You have two cows.
    You sell one and buy a bull.
    Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
    You sell them and retire on the income.

  5. hskiprob “I believe we are a fascist oligarchy, as are most countries around the world today. ”

    Did I read that right? You’re not saying evil Capitalism is to blame for all our troubles? Oh thank God!

    “It’s really hard to know for sure because the government will not ever provide the law and instead tries to insinuate that Title 26, although it is not Positive Law,…”

    How you know for sure is that the government will not ever provide a Positive Law. Simple?

    “I don’t think the laws are constitutional but the courts have said otherwise. ”

    Judge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After 81 Years (June 11, 2015 by Martin Armstrong)

    “This new decision calling the Administrative Law Courts what they really are is reminiscent of the notorious extrajudicial proceedings of the Star Chamber operated by King James I. The court of Chancery set up outside of the King’s Bench, so there were no trials by jury. It had the same purpose, to circumvent the law. This is where our Fifth Amendment privilege came into being. That came about following the trial of John Lilburne (1615-1657) for handing out a pamphlet the government did not like.”

    “t’s not a conspiracy, it’s a fact. 9/11 is just an unsolved conspiracy.” Indeed it is and thank you for your feedback. I’m just trying to dodge the arrows and wake up others to this horrifying crap and it’s not easy…

    1. Hildegard, I have enjoyed all your comments. Keep up the good work. This particular case you posted at 1: 13 am is quite interesting. It appears the courts have always been a rubber stamp for the ruling oligarchy. When I say always, one can probably go back to 8 to 10,000 years. Lol.

      As you know the problem often arises when one Judge says one thing and another judge opines another. The next Judge can go either way and then a precedence is set. We have a case here in Florida, where the our five years statute of limitations for foreclosure is being challenged by the banks. The law is very clear; you have five years to foreclose, period. The banks are trying to now say that only the months unpaid to that specific point in time is protected by this statute. In other words, the remaining 24 years can still be foreclosed if only six years has gone unpaid on a 30 year mortgage and note. The Supreme Court of Florida has had the case for over a year now. Everyone believes the Judges are trying to come up with some sort of way to side with the banksters. If you’ve seen the recent movie The Big Short, it is obvious that the banksters did a pump and dump on the mortgage market. Goldman and other were shorting the very CDOs that had sold off to investors. Who cares about the millions foreclosed on.

      It appears that only societies that have segregated the judiciary from the political powers of government have ever provided a peaceful and prosperous society for the majority. If they can’t enslave the majority physically anymore, they do it economically through the various social policies.

      The gatekeepers have been hard at work but the internet is opening up our ability to show their coverups. I think it is interesting that they sometimes call us truthers. When I tell the average person on the streets about what I have discovered about the Notice of Federal Tax Liens, I ask them what might be the reasons the government won’t provide what law/statute that gives them their authority. The almost always conclude that there must not be one especially if I am able to go into the two different types of Citizenship and show them the court cases on the subject.

Comments are closed.