It has been said that former first lady, U.S. senator and Obama secretary of state Hillary Clinton has a tin ear when it comes to certain subjects regarding her behavior and business ties, a tone-deafness that only seems to grow with each presidential attempt.
As she did in 2008, Clinton is once again attempting to capture the Democratic Party’s nomination for the White House, and again, as before, her ties to certain outside interests – not to mention her behavior while serving in her last post – are being called into question, and she just doesn’t seem to understand that these ties are not what today’s liberal find appealing.
As noted by Breitbart News, Clinton was booed by the crowd at a recent debate with her only challenger, avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, because she doesn’t get that liberals today aren’t big fans of the monies interests on Wall Street – even if she is.
The booing began after Clinton told Sanders “to end the artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out in recent weeks.”
To that, Sanders responded:
What being part of the establishment is is in the last quarter having a SuperPAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests. To my mind, if we do not get a handle on money in politics and the degree to which big money controls the political process in this country, nobody is going to bring about the changes that is needed in this country for the middle class and working families.
“I think it’s fair to really ask what’s behind that comment,” Clinton answered. “Senator Sanders says he wants to run a positive campaign. I’ve tried to keep my disagreements over issues, as it should be. Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought.
“I just absolutely reject that, Senator, I really don’t think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you,” she continued. “Enough is enough. If you’ve got something to say, say it directly. You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received. I have stood up and I have represented my constituents to the best of my abilities, and I’m very proud of that. So I think it’s time to end the artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out in recent weeks and let’s talk about the issues that divide us.”
The crowd continued to voice its disapproval as the candidates continued in crosstalk, but eventually Sanders regained the momentum.
“Let’s talk about issues. Let’s talk about issues. Let’s talk about why in the 1990s Wall Street got deregulated,” he retorted. “Did it have anything to do with the fact that Wall Street provided — spent billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions? Well, some people might think that had some influence.”
To be fair, Hillary’s husband, Bill, was president in the 1990s, not her – though Bill Clinton, during his first campaign in 1992, often said that by electing him America would get “two-for-one” – that is, Hillary as “co-president.” So given that, Sanders has a valid point.
“Let’s ask why it is that we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and your medicine can [be] doubled tomorrow and there’s nothing the government can do to stop it,” Sanders went on. “You think it has anything to do with the huge amount of campaign contributions and lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. Let’s talk about climate change. Do you think there’s a reason why not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real, and we need to transform our energy system? Do you think it has anything to do with the Koch brothers and Exxon mobile pouring huge amounts of money into the political system? That’s what goes on in America.”
The crowd cheered Sanders’ remarks, but in reality, his mention of climate change [which is not “real” for the reasons Sanders believes – industrialization of Man] and the Koch brothers are cheap applause lines for the political Left, which likes to forget that its donor class is dominated by billionaires too – and they give more to influence elections than the Koch’s do.