The “Down with Tyranny” blog quotes Hillary Clinton’s statement in a recent letter to Democratic U.S. Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, assuring him that as President she won’t be overly aggressive to reduce the coal industry, because coal-mining jobs are at stake; thus: “Coal will be part of the energy mix for years to come, both in the U.S. and around the world.”

That blogger, who styles himself “Gaius Publius,” has excellent sources in the national Democratic Party, and he comments:

Clinton uses job-concern as a reason to seem like we should proceed carefully. But after all, a great many people in the U.S. are out of jobs — many in disappearing industries — and yet I’ll be willing to bet money she either signs TPP or refuses to renegotiate it; then signs TTIP and TISA, and with them, says goodbye to the last jobs worth having, save those near the top.

So, jobs? Maybe she cares only in this case? Or maybe she cares about something else as well. Personally, I don’t take her worrying about coal jobs any more seriously than I take her worrying about, say, manufacturing jobs. Remember, the Pennsylvania primary is coming soon, with West Virginia shortly after. And if she really cares about mitigating the aggressive destruction of the coal industry, there are ways to bail out people too, not just big carbon corporations and the banks that lend to them. … I don’t think this is an unfair criticism of her, though some do think so. I find it an interesting implicit dog-whistle. “Don’t worry, coal bosses; we’ll foam your landing strip too.”

The blogger analogizes this to the bail-out of Wall Street, which Clinton supports: he says that she favored there, and still does, bailing out the lenders instead of bailing out the borrowers, and he thinks that in the coal issue she will protect the coal companies instead of protect their workers.

Hillary Clinton’s record, her vaunted experience, is remarkably consistent, in serving the people at the top, by serving to them the people at the bottom. Here are some of the relevant headlines::

“Hillary Clinton’s Global-Burning Record”

“Hillary Clinton Backs Fast-Track on Obama’s Trade Deals”

“Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors”

“Hillary Clinton Is Backed by Major Republican Donors”

“Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes”

“Hillary v. Bernie: Their Two Opposite Views of the Presidency”

She’s “the experience candidate,” in the view of voters, as if the content of that experience doesn’t matter, and as if what matters instead is the posts she has occupied: First Lady for 8 years, U.S. Senator for 4 years, then Secretary of State for 4 years.

By contrast, Bernie Sanders has a record of having been a civil-rights organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality while a student at the University of Chicago, then a mayor of Burlington, Vermont for eight years, the U.S. Representative from Vermont for 18 years, and a U.S. senator from Vermont for (so far) 10 years.

Donald Trump has no political record, except as a donor to the campaigns of Democrats and Republicans — and, of course, as the heir of NYC real-estate mogul Fred Trump, Fred’s son who continued the growth of Fred’s business.

To summarize: Hillary Clinton has a consistent record of having served well her billionaire donors. Donald Trump has a consistent record of having been served well by the politicians to whom he has donated. Bernie Sanders has a consistent record of having served well the public who elected him to public office. (That’s why he has the highest approval-rating of all 100 U.S. senators.)

It’s common for politicians to lie, and anyone who judges a candidate on the basis not of what he/she has done but instead on the basis of what he/she tells voters what that given politician will do is judging the candidate on an invalid basis.

So: would it be reasonable to assert that anyone (other than her major donors) who votes for Hillary Clinton is simply a sucker? Reader-comments here are welcomed to discuss this question, providing reasons why or why not that’s the case.