That kind of money gives the donor access.....that means the donor can talk to the politician, and present their side of the story (as convincingly as possible).

The politician will feel that she maintains neutrality, and is making decisions for herself (not influenced by money), but since she has only heard one side of the story, she is likely to choose in that direction.

Similarly, if someone says to you, "hey, I have a problem, can you help me?" then you will probably help them if it's not too much trouble. Politicians are the same, except it costs $400k to be able to tell them that. And then the politician feels good that they have helped someone.

Keep in mind its at least 400k, it does not include money given to PAC's or given directly to the DNC to get her elected via the victory for Hillary fund[0], also her foundation takes many questionable donations[1]. Add to that favors, like donating to allies campaigns, speaking fees, board postions and revolving door type jobs for friends.

[0] http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-... [1] http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/08/another-day-an...

The unpredictable megalomaniac is at heart an isolationist, though. I can't ever recall anyone else in my lifetime expressing the desire to step back from NATO and reduce overseas commitments.

Given the utter disdain for both major candidates, perhaps this year we can hope for a 3rd party candidate. Here is a nice visualization of the 4 top candidates and their stances on a wide spectrum of issues http://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV

And 3rd party. If there's ever a year where they gain traction, it's this year.

> Not so sure about that - the war was mostly Russia and Iran backing Assad against Turkey and the US backing the anti Assad rebels.

The series of wars in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq involve a lot more than that, and a Turkey-Syria-Russia alignment doesn't remove the basis for them (though it might reduce the level of violence in Syria while increasing it in Iraq, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan (and even moreso ex-Iraqi Kurdistan if the movement of that region to secede from Iraq progresses.)

Erdogan has been one of the biggest backer of anti-Assad forces in Syria, and it is unclear why that will change.

Erdogan and Assad are hardly buddies, even after the attempted coup.

So your position is that if the U.S. would just butt out, ISIS and other anti-Assad rebels would just pack it up and go home? That seems unlikely.

> back to at least 2011.

At least to 2006, ten years ago, thanks to the US Embassy cable published by Wikileaks:

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

Some coverage:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/10/wikileaks-cabl...

"The cables also show that U.S. support for efforts to overthrow the Syrian government beginning in 2011 were not a response to the Assad government’s repression of protests but rather a continuation of a years-long strategy by more directly violent means."

Without that cable, this would be impossible to prove. Helps understanding why Manning who leaked that was 9 months in solitary confinement, stripped naked:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/11/stripped-naked...

Ok, so to be clear, I'm pretty unhappy Clinton's generally hawkish approach to foreign affairs. However, especially with such emotional matters, we should be as precise as possible: > ... removing Assad...

Citation still needed. The material you provided is interesting and perhaps notable, and perhaps, if followed through, could be first steps in a campaign to remove Assad. But it's far from a direct call for regime change, as you are claiming.

Again, I'm probably more in agreement with your perspective than disagreement, but we all parties are best served if we make make more precise, evidence backed claims.

"I haven't read that myself, but even in the absence citation, you have to believe it is true,..."

I suspect you would be surprised how much that sentence scares me.