If you can add to this, please shoot me an email - Bernie@dpdlaw.com . Please note that I am not interested in "Hillary smears" (Benghazi, Vince Foster conspiracies, Monica issues, etc). Those false attacks, if anything, caused me to feel bad for Hillary, to want to defend her. They slowed my switching to becoming a Bernie supporter. Comparing my deeply held values to the reality of Hillary's record ("looking behind the curtain") are what will result in people who share our values deciding that doing the right thing" is more important than "being right."
Confessions of a former Hillary supporter.I had a "Ready for Hillary" logo as my desktop before she'd officially announced. I'm a lifelong progressive and loved Bill, voted for him twice and thought she'd be great at carrying on his legacy. I then started discussing it with a friend who supports Bernie (believing I'd win her over to being a Hillary supporter). It's human nature to defend one's positions, and I'm no exception. But there is a point where it's more important to do the right thing than to "be right." I'm an attorney, and critical thinking skills, weighing evidence and, above all, seeking justice before coming to (or changing) a conclusion is what my life is about. Why did I switch? Why am I urging you to? In a sentence - because looking behind the curtain made it plain that I wasn't supporting who I thought I was. While I reject many of the unfair smears made against her, it is undeniable that Hillary's record does not match her new-found rhetoric as to her position on these vital issues. The evidence shows beyond any doubt that she is "saying what she needs to say" in order to win the primary. She has not been truthful as to her past positions and (see below) her future intentions are plain and are not aligned with progressive, Democratic values. In contrast, as hard as it was for me to admit to myself, Bernie is fighting for the values and political beliefs I've held all my life. Even if you're sure you won't switch, you should give the points raised here -- from checked and verified sources, no right-wing Hillary bashing nonsense -- the couple of minutes (or a few more if you follow the links) it takes to understand. And, hopefully, to join the political revolution. • 1. Profits over people or People over profits? • 2. The Environment • 3. Combination of #1 and #2: Monsanto • 4. Universal Healthcare • 5. Racism and equality • 6. Foreign Policy • 7. Emails and concern over transparency and legal issues • 8. Believing and trusting Bernie • 9. The inspiring stories and reasons that others have switched to supporting Bernie • 10. Reasons why NOT to vote for Bernie debunked
1. PROFITS OVER PEOPLE: WHERE HILLARY LOST ME. We have urgent problems in our country and need to change direction. Primarily as a result of policies that started with Ronald Reagan, the concentration of opportunity, wealth, and income in the hands of the very few is endangering the very existence of the middle class. It's been nearly a decade since the USA provided the world's highest standard of living - an honor now held by Canada. Many describe the system we have devolved into as "corporatism" rather than "capitalism" in light of its lack of opportunity. The movement of wealth from the middle class to the very top endangers capitalism itself as the buying power of consumers disappears, and is absurdly unfair. Bad government economic decisions caused this crisis, and good, people-centered decisions are needed to fix it. The last eight years have not seen a reversal of this trend. We need real change. And we need it now.
(A) The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) One of the biggest causes of our problems is trade treaties that benefit corporations at the direct expenses of the middle and working class. The worst of these treaties is NAFTA. Although she has denied it during the debates, Hillary was a big fan of NAFTA. Under it, there are astounding corporate profits -- and the loss of a huge number of American jobs as corporations can now out-source labor to Mexico where the cost of living (and thus wages) is a fraction of what it is in the U.S. Discovering that Hillary openly lied about her position on NAFTA was upsetting. Her claims on her position are revisionist (if not Orwellian). She outrageously claims that she has steadfastly been against it. From a perspective of who she "really" supports (and it can't be both), I am more upset at her lack of truth as to her position than I am as to her taking it in the first place. Her support of NAFTA is credited by many with generating support for Donald Trump in the many areas that have been devastated by it. This, once again, was one of the few times that the contest was between the 1% - the corporation owners and CEO's - and the middle and working classes. And, once again, with a campaign fully funded by those who benefit from NAFTA, Hillary chose the 1%. Hillary's accomplishments that had me sold as a Hillary supporter (the Lilly Ledbetter Act, "feel-good" positions, etc) are window-dressing. They're great - undeniably. And they are a side-show; a distraction. The "Oh my God" moment comes when one focuses not on what's easy, but on what's hard: the contests between the 1% and the working and middle classes. Bernie has fought his whole life for these issues. He never sold out nor played along. When NAFTA was being considered, he traveled to Mexico and the manufacturing states in the US. He saw what it would do. To the chagrin of Hillary's backers, Bernie forcefully spoke out against NAFTA and voted against it. Is the reason I switched to supporting Bernie becoming clearer? (B) The Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty (TPP) Hillary isn't done with "trade treaties" that are a boon to the 1% and the destruction of the disappearing working and middle classes. Hillary was a vocal supporter of the TPP, which is sometimes refered to as "NAFTA on steroids." Whereas the cost of living in Mexico permits companies to pay $2.15 per hour wages, the cost of living in the countries involved with the TPP is less than a third of that. Again, the middle-class and workers in the US can't compete - cause, you know, it costs more than .86 cents per hour to raise a family here. And (until the buying power of the middle and workers is eventually wiped out as these policies move forward), the 1% cashes in and we are sold out. Hillary has supported the TPP. I therefore can no longer support Hillary. There is no ambiguity here - one of the major reasons I switched was that Hillary openly and repeatedly lied about her fervent support of the TPP, apparently not aware that the internet saves things like speeches given as secretary of state, folks keep videos these days and that she's on tape 24 times of the at least 45 times she openly supported it. Even her dear friends at CNN (owned by Time Warner, which hasdonated $400,000 or more - perhaps much more - to her campaign), have acknowledged that Hillary was one of the TPP's loudest advocates, including hard selling it to other countries as Secretary of State. And once again, from a trust perspective as to whether she would act in the interests of the middle and working classes, I am at least as upset about her false denials as I am about her support of the TPP. I don't like being lied to, and I am not going to vote for someone who has lied to us on issues of this importance. After the comments by Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue, a top lobbyist for the 1% and the TPP, that he is "confident" that Hillary will again "evolve on the issue" if she is elected, we need to see the writing on the wall.
(C) Wall Street / Big Banking The next culprit is the rise of "big banking." As a result of the Great Depression, FDR enacted a series of changes to banking laws designed to ensure that an economic collapse of that magnitude would be far less likely to recur. The Federal Government insured bank deposits, but required that banks keep (federally insured) activites separate from investment activities, so that banks gamble with their own money, not money the government is insuring. Changes made to Glass-Steagall since the 1980's permitted banks to engage in previously forbidden activities, such as insurance and investment banking. This paved way for mergers and the creation of banks so large that their failure threatens to bring down the overall economy. These "too big to fail" banks have enriched the Clintons and funded Hillary's campaign. Specifically, Wall Street has paid Hillary and Bill $153,000,000 (One Hundred Fifty Three Million Dollars) for speeches, and has contributed over $44.1 million to Hillary's campaign. During the December 2015, debate, Hillary gave far lower numbers and offered that anyone who wished to verify her claims could log on to Open Secrets. Taking her up the challenge, Open Secrets exposed that Hillary had cut in half the actual donations she receives from Wall Street by omitting Super-PAC contributions. Again, this was less than forthright and on an issue where she is asking for a lot trust from us - that in spite of her funding, she will prioritize Main Street over Wall Street. The danger posed by the "too big to fail" banks have resulted in calls to break them up so that no one bank holds more than 10% of the country's wealth. Reformers, and those concerned more with the danger to the economy than with the bottom lines of the mega-banks, have called for the biggest ones to be broken up. Elizabeth Warren urges it, as does (to no one's surprise) Bernie's plan. However, they are far from alone. Neel Kashkari, a registered, long-time Republican Federal Reserve offical and former Goldman Sachs executive (who apparently took his change of role seriously), called the failure to break up the banks a "nuclear risk" to our economy. Robert Reich, the former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, joins in the "urgent" call to do so. The vast majority of economists outside of those currently serving on Wall Street have called for the breaking up of these banks, arguing that the risk of short-term loss of profits is far, far outweighed by the risk to the overall economy. Wall Street crashed our economy twice in the last 100 years, and Hillary has stated that she will not reinstate Glass-Steagal, but will only undertake reforms short of breaking up the banks that will not undertake the reforms that economists including the New Republic say are necessary. Instead, she will commit only to some new regulation which one are, in fact, simply "wrong." What better example could there be? At this point with our current system, "Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress." A review of her record (looking behind the curtain) convinces no one that Hillary will take any action to change this. To the contrary, as Jaret Seiberg of Guggenheim Partners wrote in a note to clients, " We continue to believe Clinton would be one of the better candidates for financial firms."
Add to this, of course, the refusal to release the transcripts of her speechs to Goldman Sachs (etc). This was a major turning point for me. She won't even reveal to us what she promised? Come on! This is a job interview, Madam Secretary - if you don't give the requested information, you don't get the job, (Or my support for it, anyway), especially when the unofficial tidbits that have found their way out are, to say the least, troubling. (D) Walmart, and a morally unacceptable "plantation economy" at home and abroad Hillary sat on the board of WalMart, the nation's largest employer, which pays wages so low that a full time employee with one child qualifies for food stamps (at a cost of $6.2 billion per year to taxpayers), while it's top executives earn multi-million dollar bonuses and its owners are worth $144.7 BILLON DOLLARS. This is not the country I want to live in...and it's sure not the way I want to vote. Note that Alice Walton just infused another huge donation to Hilary’s campaign. Does anyone think the 1% is funding her campaign to be nice? No. They expect a return and studying Hillary's record shows that these funds have been wisely invested to that end. Hillary's choice of the 1% over the workers isn't limited just to Americans. It's a philosophy of wealth over people that knows no borders. In 2010, workers in Haiti finally convinced the government to raise the minimum wage to 61 cents per hour. Hillary intervened through the State Department and pressured the government to raise it to only 31 cents per hour, thus ensuring that corporate profits for Fruit of the Loom, Hanes, Levi’s, and other US-owned corporations would remain absurdly high. It was estimated that the sought-after increase would have cost roughly $1.6 million per year, an unacceptably high cut into the $211 million in profits reaped. Hillary's quick and decisive action saved Hanesbrand's CEO Richard Noll from what would surely would have been a devastating cut to his estimated $10 million per year in compensation.. Like much of the reality of Hillary's public persona, she doesn't advertise positions like these, which came to light only due toWikileak's exposing several thousand sensitive communications with the government. These huge corporate profits and the destruction / outsourcing of labor is the biggest contributor to the disappearance of the Middle Class and destruction of the Working class. I cannot support this and therefore could not remain a Hillary supporter. 2. THE ENVIRONMENT: I live near one of the areas in Pennsylvania famous for the videos of water catching on fire and fields of dead cows and mutated animals. To say fracking is dangerous is an understatement. To say it's an abomination against our environment and the rape of Mother Earth is a lot more accurate. Hillary got on stage in Flint, Michigan and said that fracking is okay by her (with several complex qualifiers). Ouch. Hillary has not only has been a vocal supporter of fracking in the USA, but has led the push to export the practice to other countries. According to Mother Jones (again, hardly a right-wing news source), Hillarychampioned the profits and minimized the risks to many developing nations during her time as Secretary of State. In other words, she adopted, in whole, the propaganda selling line of a multi-billion dollar industry that is enriching its leaders with $30 and $40 million annual bonuses while poisoning the earth in ways that are just incomprehensible. Although at a lesser rate than coal or other fossil fuels, fracking is contributing to climate change, the greatest threat to the planet today. Fracking causes earthquakesand climate change. The earthquake link, by this way, is no longer theoretical. The U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, recently confirmed the link beyond question.. And, while 97.3 times out of 100, there are no other environmental 100% of the time fracking makes huge profits. Fracking has poisoned the earth and, aside from the global climate change it contributes to, is a deadly threat to our planet. One must choose: it's fracking or it's profits. There is no middle ground, and Hillary's record is clear. THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE: For a host of reasons, the pipeline is a bad idea. The environmental implications of a problem are almost beyond comprehension.Hillary's own words on the pipeline speak for themselves. As secretary of state, when asked as to whether she supported it, she said "[W]e are inclined to do so. We're either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada." (This isn't a misquote, here she is saying it). Now, she says she's against it.The fossil fuel industry (through registered lobbyists, PAC's, and Super-PAC's) has contributed over $3.5 million to HRC's campaign. In fact, the evidence shows clearly that, direct contributions aside, Hillary’s Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists). There is no reason to believe that she will take any action whatsoever that those financing her campaign wouldn't like. There is no evidence supporting a belief that Hillary will do anything to cut the $20 billion per year in corporate welfare they receive. WE MUST CHOOSE. WE CANNOT BOTH BE AN ENVIRONMENTALIST AND A HILLARY SUPPORTER. THE TWO ARE FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE.
3. COMINATION OF #1 AND #2: MONSANTO Monsanto is probably the scariest corporation out there, personifying all that is wrong with unchecked, unregulated, too-powerful corporate influence in our country's government. Hillary's chief campaign advisor is Monsanto lobbyist Jerry Crawford. Do people not understand what Monsanto is all about? GMO food, fighting labeling of it, passing the "Monsanto Protection Act" providing that they can't be sued over GMO's - even if the European studies linking them to tumors are confirmed? Putting small farmers out of business and turning them into low-paid employees? There's no better example of how "looking behind the curtain" results in people asking asking who it is they are supporting when they support Hillary. 4. HEALTHCARE: In many ways, this issue is just a continuation of the above - profits over people. Hillary was once a ferocious advocate for single-payer universal healthcare. Then, as the famous meme points out, it started raining Insurance Industry and Big Pharma dollars. Specifically, she made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the industry, and now seems to believe that our "for profit" healthcare system is just fine and dandy. Obamacare (the ACA) leaves our system as the only for-profit medical system in the industrialized world. Between 1.4% and 4% of Medicare costs go to overhead and administration. The healthcare and pharmaceutical industries pay average bonuses of $5.4 million in cash and stock to their CEO's and the industry overall makes roughly $60 billion per year in profit, with about 85% of premiums spent on healthcare, and the rest in the company's pockets. Hillary will not change this -- much of the $1.2 billion spent by the industry to ensure the ACA would maintain high profit margins were made by donators to Hillary's campaign and super-PAC's. In spite of her claim during the October, 2015 debate that the enemies she was most proud of having made include the health care industry, in fact no candidate has receivedas much in donations from the health care and pharmaceutical industry the as she has. There will not even be a public option. I promise, and my God how I would hate to say "I told you so." YOU CANNOT BE AN ADVOCATE FOR ENDING OUR SYSTEM OF FOR-PROFIT HEALTHCARE AND BE A HRC SUPPORTER. THE TWO ARE FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE.
5. RACE / SEXUAL ORIENTATION / LGBT: Based on her reaction to the Black Lives Matter protester, her history of being a "Goldwater Girl", her taking money from private prisons -- I do not believe that Hillary has any fixed moral opinion on the issue. This is not digging up ancient history. Recall in 2008 when running against Obama, she had no problem with making race an issue. If it were expedient for her to do so again, I am concerned that she would. Michelle Alexander's article Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote was key to my reasoning on this issue. Bernie's life and the issues he's fought for disproportionately affect the Black and Hispanic communities (starting with his being arrested 50 years ago for chaining himself to a Black woman to protest segregation). I believe Bernie is sincere. He has been on the right side of history as to every major issue, long before (in contrast to Hillary) it was popular. There is absolutely no doubt that electing a leader who will fight to change the rigged economy will go a long way to alleviating the damage that racism has caused through our country's history. A minute and a half video worth watching: "Killer Mike"'s excellent comparison of Hillary v. Bernie on civil rights
Similarly, it's no secret that Hillary vehemently opposed gay marriage, voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, and voted for "Don't Ask / Don't Tell." Although she now has asserted different positions on the issue, she did not do so until the political winds had firmly shifted in that direction, and there has still been a difference between her public and private views on the topic. Even after her now famous "gay rights are human rights" speech, she fumed when the State Department changed the designation on passports to reflect non-traditional families, insisting (successfully) that the change be un-done. In contrast, Bernie staked out a position on this issue long before it was popular, at a time when there was no guarantee it ever would be popular.
This is war. It should be our last resort, not our first choice.6. FOREIGN POLICY: Hillary is a neo-con on foreign policy. What that translates to is death. Death in military actions that are not absolutely necessary to protect our country. Death of US soldiers and of civilians in other countries. One does not simply "apologize" for a complete lack of insight and wisdom on a vote that plunged our country into a disastrous war in Iraq, leading to the deaths of over 3,000 Americans and between 155,000 and 250,000 Iraqi civilians from violent deaths and perhaps 1,000,000 total deaths. If it was heartfelt and an aberration from one's usual record, maybe "I'm sorry" would pass muster. But I now believe it was neither. Iraq wasn't the last big test Hillary faced, and not her last failure. Even traditional liberal / progressive sources are acknowledging that the pro-war decision to bomb Libya has been disastrous, for many of the same reasons the Iraq vote was a failure of leadership: the creation of a power vacuum into which (once again) ISIS has stepped. And this is before one even considers the (little-covered in the mainstream media) "other (financial / oil) motives" that Hillary's emails have shown were a large part of her decision to attack Libya. While Israel is our ally, Obama has been right in standing up to them on some issues. Her unqualified, unquestioning support of everything and anything Israel wants to do is just plain scary. It is a receipe for disaster and war. I'm an Army veteran and have two friends who didn't come back and more than I count who came back damaged physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Military is not something that should be undertaken casually, and never something that should be done with profit motives rather than the protection of our vital interests and security. The concerns over Hillary's foreign policies aren't limited to the Middle East. Democracy Now (yet another left-leaning source) raises serious questions as to Hillary's State Department's involvement with the assasination of Berta Caceres in Honduras and the violent suppression of her pro-worker movement. Perhaps all of this is why even the left-leaning "Neocon watch" has declared Hillary to be a "neo-con" on foreign policy issues. In sum, whereas I once saw her "experience" in foreign policy matters to be a reason to vote for her, I am now deeply afraid of what that experience has shown and where she would lead our country.
7. EMAILS. The problem here is very much like a reverse "boy who cried Wolf" -- there have been so many nonsense smears against Hillary over the years that people hear "private email server" and look no further. Folks, this is different. She openly lied during the debate when she said she had done the same thing that Powell and General Petraeus had done. They had sent a couple of inappropriate emails over their personal accounts. This is not what Hillary did – she freaking set up an email server for all official business and transmitted sensitive information over it. There is a world of difference between the two. Additionally, when they did wrong, the current federal regulations requiring the use of only government email addresses for official business were not in place. And Anderson Cooper is fully aware that this was inaccurate, but asked no follow-up questions. She used the same email address to communicate with foreign entities seeking donations to the Clinton foundation as she did for communications as Secretary of State. The Mother Jones article on Hillary's State Department approving arms deals to countries (many with atrocious human rights records) who made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation also raises serious conflict of interest questions, as does the inverse: Bill Clinton receiving millons of dollars in "speaking fees"from weapons manufacturers who then received lucrative contracts to provide those arms. One should at least read the results of a Google search on "clinton boeing emails russia". Or, at a minimum, if you're not following all the ethical implications of Boeing making a donation to the Clinton Foundation after a contract with Russia was steered its way by the then-Secretary of State, at least read this article". Similar conflict of interest questions are raised when, for example, Hillary suddenly calls for a probe of ExxonMobil's climate change activites just months after it cut off its funding to the Clinton Global Initiative. This isn't Bengazi or Monica nonsense - this is, obviously, a deep concern. I guarantee if you or I did something like this, we would would already have been indicted. None of the excuses or explanations she has given hold water. None. Whether Bernie is "sick of hearing about her damned emails" or not, this is a frightening parallel to Richard Nixon's growing scandal in the 1972 election. It's not going away, nor should it if the law applies to everyone equally. When this came to light, she had her staff delete 30,000 emails. As an attorney, this very much appears to me to be the definition of "obstruction of justice." According to C-SPAN, there is a federal grand jury impanelled, which means that indictment is being considered. C-SPAN is hardly some right wing source. Take a few minutes and watch C-SPAN interview with a former Justice Department offical for yourself.. But put aside the criminal aspect. She lied during the debate by saying Powell and Petraeus "did the same thing", as they sent a few personal emails (before the now-existing laws mandating the use of government email addresses for official business) whereas HRC set up a private server, then erased 30,000+ emails when the issue started coming to light. The Attorney General just granted one of her employees immunity -- hello? That's applicable to criminal investigation only. Using a secret, private server? Even if she isn't indicted -- putting aside the criminal aspects, HOW TRANSPARENT IS THIS? Why would anyone vote for someone who has already openly demonstrated a complete lack of transparency? 8. I believe Bernie and I believe in what he wants to do, where he wants to take this country. For over 50 years, he has been on the right side of history on every single major issue affecting our country - not when doing so was politically popular, but even when it wasn't. That's a leader. I believe him when he says his plan is to bring about a "political revolution" - including going to the districts of representatives if they oppose changing our country - he will not just disappear into the White House and let the strong progressive message of his campaign fade. In contrast to other presidents, his election will be the beginning (not the end) of change.
I believe Bernie will fight to really make this country what it could be - just. I respected Hillary’s accomplishments - the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act, to fighting for kids when she was a young attorney, sticking up for Women's Rights, butnone of these present a conflict between the middle class and workers and the 1% (the unrestrained, unregulated excesses of pure capitalism that threaten to destroy our free-market economy by completing the disappearance of the working and middle classes). I now see that Hillary's record is a carefully stage-managed package of issues meant to be popular. Look, for example, at what Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have FOUGHT FOR - what they've stood up for: US. None of HRC's positions do that. THERE WAS A MOMENT WHEN "THE LIGHT BULB CAME ON" AND I REALIZED I HAD TO SWITCH TO BERNIE. In sum, I switched to Bernie because I am a progressive and I share his vision for America. He is one of us, not a subsidiary of any bank or corporation. If any of you have read this far, I hope and pray that you'll do likewise and, when you walk into that booth and it's just you and your conscience, you'll decide that doing the right thing is more important than having been right.
9. Other sources / resources / excellent write-ups: Since my putting up this page, others have shared why many other thinkers evolved from supporting Hillary to Bernie. If anyone is still somehow on the fence or undecided or unconvinced that Bernie is the best candidate to move this country in the direction it needs to go, please take a minute and read: The best one out there. Wish I'd written it. A "must read" for any HRC supporter with an open mind! Although a little more negative than I am trying to be, this summary is also excellent and full of information and links / resources. A collection of videos and memes comparing Hillary and Bernie. This article showing how Hillary's positions defy her claims of being a progressive. Civil rights activist and former long-time Hillary supporter Nina Turner on her reasons for switch to supporting Bernie.. Attorney and State Representative Justin Bamberg on his evolution from Hillary supporter to feeling the Bern. Why Carole Mallory switched to Bernie from Hillary. Another excellent, thought-provoking piece from Carole Mallory on her switch to Bernie.. Video of Sarah Silverman, actress and long-time political activist and thinker, on why she switched to Bernie. A collection of many others who switched to Bernie after supporting Hillary. 10. In addition to seeing him as the only person running (maybe in my lifetime) who is willing to really address the issues, there were several reasons I had for NOT voting for Bernie. First, anyone with concerns should watch the Robert Reich video addressing them. He's more eloquent than I am. Professor (former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton) Reich also has a great blog post going through and addressing the concerns. Finally, others have collected documents that dispel many of the rumors and concerns over these issues.. Well worth the read! Who am I, by the way? In relevant part, a civil rights attorney, a lifelong Democrat (although not sure I'll be one after NJ's primary) a recovering Hillary supporter, and, well, click here if interested.