Is Hillary Clinton the handmaiden of Wall Street and For-Profit Ed? Well, Senator Sanders and his supporters (including my front page colleague Hillary downstairs here) have made that insinuation.
But during the last debate, when Senator Sanders was asked to name one example of a decision Clinton had made on the basis of donations, he whiffed. Still, insinuations are powerful, even if they are in reality pretty meaningless.
I’ll give you an example: My late mother regularly received cash from a deeply misogynist, homophobic organization with an appallingly bloody history and a recent track record of functioning as a child rapist protection racket.
Does that mean my mom was in favor of sexism, homophobia and pedophilia? You might think so from the above statement, but nope — it means she was a nurse at a Catholic hospital.
Here’s another example, and one from the political realm: Suppose a US Senator recently made a statement that was praised by a pack of blood-drenched psychopaths who think the proper response to the shooting deaths of a classful of first graders is MOAR GUNZZZZ!
Can we conclude then that the senator in question is a gun-humping moron who is indifferent to the murder of children? I don’t think it would be fair at all to characterize Senator Sanders that way.
In summary: it’s fair to ask questions or investigate ties that raise your suspicions. But if guilt by association is the standard by which we judge folks, we’re all guilty, including Senator Sanders.