However, if, God forbid, xenophobic racist blowhard Donald Trump were to be the Republican nominee, he could make the case that he is less indebted to moneyed interests than Hillary is.  He has largely been self-funded thus far, and is running as a populist.  Yes, he is an evil, xenophobic racist populist who is using voter anger to cynically stoke fear of immigrants, Muslims, etc.  But he plays the outsider, claims that he doesn't take money from anybody else (although he has taken some), and has positioned himself as the most populist of the freakshow otherwise known as the Republican presidential primary.

There's a reason why populism in its ugly form (Trump) and in its more idealistic (albeit admittedly somewhat unrealistic) form (Sanders) is getting so much traction.  People are pissed.  Wages have stayed stagnant for 30 plus years and the Middle Class dream is slipping away for more and more people.

To be a successful candidate in this election cycle will require an awareness and acknowledgement of this anger.  Obama inherited a terrible economy, and had to fight Republican obstructionism tooth and nail to pass anything.  I think he's helped the economy, and I'm convinced the economic situation would have been a whole lot worse under a President McCain or a President Romney.  

I object to it due to studies like the one conducted by Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University), summarized here.  (See link to actual study at bottom)

Does the study prove without a doubt that Hillary would be corrupted by the money she's received from moneyed interests?  No.

But I think this study's findings are very telling all the same, and paint a picture of a Washington D.C. that is far far too corrupted by money and lobbyists.  

When you think back to the financial crisis of 2008, who got bailed out 100 cents on the dollar?  Why, Goldman Sachs et. al.!  And who was left to fend for themselves (except for very ineffectual, not-worthy-to-the-task programs like HAMP)?  Ordinary Joe Schmoe Americans, struggling to stay in their homes.

When Wall Street, Big Pharma, oil companies and other moneyed interests give money to candidates, they don't do so out of the goodness of their hearts.  They expect a return on investment.  And when the rubber hits the road and a bill is on the line, they send teams of lobbyists up to D.C. to try to ensure that their financial interests are protected.  And far too often, lobbyist influence is such that they can prevail in congress, even when the majority of the public is on the opposite side of the issue.

To her credit, Hillary later admitted she regretted that vote, saying  "I was happy that it never became law." She later voted against a very similar bill in 2005, so it appears she listened to her better angels that time around.

So is that a slam dunk case of malfeasance?  No.  But I do find it a bit of a stretch to believe that someone who has received 675,000 dollars from one company in one year is going to turn around and crack down on this same company after being elected.

My guess is that, once elected, she'll be like Obama, offer some words occasionally about the corrupting influence of money, but will never make it a priority, and won't ever expend much political capital on doing anything meaningful about it.  It will just get back-burnered.

What a screwed up country we've got. Papa Bush was on the cover of Newsweek with the headline, "The Wimp Factor." Some Wimp! A decorated fighter pilot in WW2, shot down in the Pacific, and yet, was credited with having saved other shot down pilots. (Of course, I'm not talking politics here.)

Michael Dukakis's caught by surprise answer about a hypothetical rape ended up giving us a Republican President.

Howard Dean's, off the cuff "scream," thought to be off-the-record, destroyed a good man's opportunity to serve the country.

Al Gore "sighed," and we ended up with a demented, ne're-do-well aberration for President.