Greg Sargent points us to this exchange yesterday on CNN:
WOLF BLITZER: Are you suggesting that Secretary Clinton is beholden to Wall Street and big money?
BERNIE SANDERS: No. What I’m simply saying is a fact. She recently reported that her Super PAC received $25 million. $15 million of that came from Wall Street.
I will let the American people determine what all of that means.
And here is Sargent on what Sanders is doing:
He says our political economy is in the grip of an oligarchic elite, resulting in a massive upward redistribution of wealth in recent decades and rendering government paralyzed from doing anything about it….Sanders constantly points to the funding of her campaign — and her acceptance of speaking fees — as symptomatic of this problem. But Sanders does not want to take the final step and say that Clinton personally is making the policy choices she does precisely because she is beholden to the oligarchy, due to its funding of her campaign. The upshot is that Sanders is indicting the entire system, but doesn’t want to question the integrity of Clinton herself — or perhaps doesn’t want to be seen doing that. This is the central tension at the heart of Sanders’s whole argument.
Is it true that Sanders is just too nice a guy to name names? Maybe. But I’m a little less inclined to be generous about this kind of thing. To my ears, it sounds more like typical political smarm. “Hey, I’m not saying she’s a crook. I’m just saying she drives a pretty nice car, amirite?” Contra Sargent, I’d say that Sanders is very much questioning the integrity of Clinton herself, and doing it in a pretty familiar way.
