Hillary Clinton has many liabilities as a presidential candidate, her
strident liberalism and thin record of accomplishment among them. But
her greatest liability is her venality. And it may be what ultimately
dooms her campaign.Hillary's corruptibility was on display at a town hall event in
Nashua, N.H., on Wednesday. When asked by CNN's Anderson Cooper why she
had accepted $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, Clinton
replied, "I don't know. That's what they offered."
Clinton said she accepted the money in part because she wasn't really
thinking about running for president at the time. Then she insisted
that the money wouldn't influence her policies if she becomes president.
When asked if she regretted taking the money, she said that she did
not. First of all, it is untrue that Goldman Sachs offered Clinton $675,000 to speak. As the Washington Examiner's Paul Bedard reported, Hillary's speech fee was set by her agent, not the bank.
Clinton challenged Cooper to "just name one thing" on which those who
have paid her for speeches have influenced her. There are numerous
examples of the Clintons or their charities receiving money at times
when one or both of them exerted influence on behalf of the sources of
that money. In fact, a best-selling book was written on the subject last May. Clinton also told Cooper about Goldman Sachs, "I mean, they're not giving me very much money now, I can tell you that much."
But again, that's not quite true, at least according to most people's definition of "very much." As The Examiner's
Timothy P. Carney notes, Goldman Sachs employees have donated more than
$90,000 to Hillary's presidential campaign, nearly twice as much as Ted
Cruz has raised from the Wall Street giant, even though his wife works
there.
The Clintons' extreme wealth and close ties to Wall Street are likely
to be a liability for Hillary as she continues trying to fend off a
primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. The socialist senator from
Vermont has become a plausible threat to her by railing against the 1
percent and assailing Clinton for her close ties to Wall Street.
And it will also hurt her in a general election contest. How can she
inveigh against the cost of college when she charges public universities
$300,000 to deliver speeches to students who are walking away from
school with $100,000 in loan debt?
How can she complain about the insidious role of money in politics
when she and her husband have made an estimated $139 million from paid
speeches, routing them through a complex system of charities and private
companies seemingly in an effort to elude detection?
And how can Clinton claim to "feel the pain" of America's
hollowed-out middle class when between 2013-15 she earned roughly $2.9
million from Wall Street banks and other financial companies for just a
dozen speeches? After all, according to one estimate, that's more than the average worker with a bachelor's degree can expect to earn in a lifetime.
The answer is she can't.
In 2012, exit polls revealed that most voters preferred Mitt Romney's
values and policies over those of Barack Obama. But Obama bested Romney
on empathy-related questions, including by 10 points on the question,
"Who is more in touch with people like you?" With Clinton as their nominee, Democrats would cede the empathy vote to Republicans — and with it, perhaps, the election.
0 comments:
Post a Comment