There are many things wrong with what you’ve stated here. But I’ll just point out that…
There’s a common formula that people use when attacking a candidate:
1. person A is concerned about the environment
2. person A is proposing legislation to aggressively restrict pollution and encourage alternatives to fossil fuels
3. person A travels on a jet airplane when traveling the country and world trying to affect this change
And since #3 is involves contributing to environmental harm, people will assert that there is hypocrisy here, and the entire message and proposed policies are to be ignored. This could be straight up Tu quoque fallacy, although I’m not sure.
Let’s try to look at this glitch in thinking another way….
Candidate #1 is a billionaire. She has been fighting for 40 years on behalf of policies that grow the middle class and poor people. She has consistently advocated for strong environmental protection laws. She has been fighting for reproductive freedom and civil rights for decades.
Candidate #2 has a checking account with $2000 in it, and has been dipping into her retirement account to pay her mortgage on her 900 square foot house. For decades, she has been fighting for policies that hurt the middle class and the poor. She has consistently fought against environmental protection laws. And as a fundamentalist Christian, she has been fighting to restrict reproductive freedom and civil rights for decades.
Would it make sense to vote for Candidate #2 just because she is not rich? Here’s a hint: It’s not about what the candidates look like, what they sounds like, or how much money they have. The policies they are proposing are what is important. Are they not?
The average Democrat that I know (I’m not one) doesn’t care how much money the candidates have. They are also confused enough to believe that Clinton is great. They don’t particularly like her. But she’s the corporate candidate that holds positions that are better than her opponents (and of the Republicans).
But if you are truly interested in money and the candidates, it might make sense to take a look at donor lists. Check out the super pacs and the donors (Koch). Clinton does take this money, along with other corporate Democrats (why do you think TPP can pass). And they will be responsible for representing the interests of those donors once they are in power. But if both candidates in the general election have been selected by wealthy corporate interests, the illusion of choice plays out here. And the illusion doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no difference.
On a side note, I’m rather surprised that the talk of Marxism has entered its way into the American election debacle. It would be like discussing anarcho syndicalism at a golf tournament.