15 November 2015

The New York Times Editorial Board Calls Out Hillary on Wall Street

I missed the last Democratic debate, and what I think probably does not matter, I am not an undecided voter.

I will review it later.

That being said, what the pundits say does typically make a difference, so the OP/ED from the Times criticizing Hillary's answers on her relationship with Wall Street is significant:
Hillary Clinton should have seen that Wall Street shot coming. Instead, she compounded the damage.

The former secretary of state was off to a sound outing in Saturday night’s debate against Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland. Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris dominated at first, allowing her to highlight her superior experience in world affairs. But it was those attacks that made her badly muffed response to questions about her fealty to Wall Street all the more jarring. Here’s the exchange:
Mr. Sanders: “I have never heard a candidate, never, who has received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street, from the military-industrial complex, not one candidate say, oh, these campaign contributions will not influence me. I’m going to be independent. Well, why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that. Once again, I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors, 750,000 of them, 30 bucks apiece. That’s who I’m indebted to.”

Mrs. Clinton: “Well John, [John Dickerson, the moderator] wait a minute. Wait a minute, he has basically used his answer to impugn my integrity. Let’s be frank here.”

Mr. Sanders: “No, I have not.”

Mrs. Clinton: “Oh, wait a minute, senator. You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small. And I’m very proud that for the first time a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent. So, I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”

Her effort to tug on Americans’ heartstrings instead of explaining her Wall Street ties — on a day that the scars of 9/11 were exposed anew — was at best botched rhetoric. At worst it was the type of cynical move that Mrs. Clinton would have condemned in Republicans.

She should make a fast, thorough effort to explain herself by providing a detailed plan for how she would promote measures protecting middle-class Americans from another financial crisis.
This has to be the lamest invocation of 911 for a bad policy since Bush invaded Iraq. (Which Hillary voted for, BTW)

Her attempts to don the mantle of anti-Wall Street populism are unconvincing, and this is something that her opponents should focus on with a laser like focus.


Rick Haley said...

Wall street ties? BWWwaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!
So what...sanders has them to...They all do...

Matthew Saroff said...

That wasn't my point, neither was it the point of the Times editorial board.

They, and I, were condemning her for pulling out the 911 card.

We all know that Hillary is lying about going after Wall Street.

She doesn't have to be George W. Bush stupid in her mendacity.

Post a Comment