So Hillary surpasses Obama (who lead thru the 1st 2 quarters) in Wall Street funding.

And that makes his taking money from Wall Street squeaky clean?

Is that what Mr. Change's supporters are gonna hang their hat on?

Pointing out the hypocrisy of partisans of other candidates doesn't help Clinton. It just hardens attitudes.

As Gandhi said, "And eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

Better to note Bill Clinton's economic record in terns of his unprecedented reliance on advice from people in the investment markets (particularly the bond market), versus solely relying on old-money corporate heads and trust-fund nannies. Wall street input is not always a bad thing in relative terms, assuming any candidate viable will be taking money from some big sector or another.

Clinton worked to keep interest rates low by playing directly to the bond market, versus more trickle-down approaches. It seems to have worked well. Not a perfect progressive dream, but a lot more people felt comfortable under Clinton. Income disparity actually decreased.

Obama is smart because he accepts wall street money, because in his mind he really hates wall street. Hillary is evil because she accepts wall street money, so she will do their bidding once she's elected. :crazy:

but what is the practical purpose of showing up their hypocrisy?

The best one can hope for on DU for Clinton is grudging semiacceptance, not love. The flamers on both sides are beyond persuasion. And people on the fence will be more persuaded by a soft tone.

Just my opinion, of course.

necessarily good for Mainstreet."