re: #363 Jay C

I found it funny that the New York Times uses/uses this same clip on their online font page: bleeps and all.

Though my amusement over the NYT was pretty well tempered by reading their coverage of last night’s Clinton-Sanders debate: they must have made it a part of their official style book that ANY reportage on ANY Clinton (except maybe Chelsea’s baby) HAS to be couched in as negative a manner as possible, without veering into actual insult Their whole takeaway from the debate seems be “Hillary’s ties to Wall Street”. And how she was booed by the Bernistas….

What I have yet to hear, even from Hillary, is that a successful run for high office costs a LOT of money with our current system. Do we really want to just hand elections to the Republicans/oligarchs, who have no qualms about outright buying elections, by standing on some moral financial highground by refusing cash support?

Reform would be outstanding and would certainly garner my full support but that isn’t the way the game works right now. Show that Hillary has been bought as reflected by her votes, etc. or STFU and let her do her job which includes support for down ticket races.