You dont become the all-time world champion cattle futures trader without a keen sense for numbers and timing . . . and bull. So of course when Hillary Clinton was challenged at last Thursdays presidential debate in New York she instinctively knew to hide behind Barack Obamas suit.
The Real Clear Politics average of voter surveys shows 87 percent of Democrats are totally in sync with President Obama. Theres no accounting for taste. Up that to 91 percent for African-Americans the critical voting block that has saved Mrs. Clinton against her rival Sen. Bernie Sanders.
With tensions rising and rhetoric sharpening in the approach to this Tuesdays Empire State Primary Sen. Sanders acknowledged early in the debate that Hillary indeed had the experience and the intelligence to be a president." He quickly added however But I do question her judgement."
As Exhibit A Bernie again introduced Hillarys vote for the Iraq War which he opposed calling it the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country." Next the Vermont senator hit Clintons support for numerous trade agreements which cost us millions of decent-paying jobs." Last but not least Sanders offered And I question her judgment about running super PACs which are collecting tens of millions of dollars from special interests including $15 million from Wall Street."
I dont believe that that is" he concluded to thunderous applause from the Democratic audience the kind of judgment we need to be the kind of president we need."
Confronted on the national stage with her prime liability i.e. nobody in their right mind trusts her Hillary Clinton resorted to the age-old little kid dodge: Well Obama did it!
Make no mistake about it" Hillary told the crowd this is not just an attack on me its an attack on President Obama."
When the booing subsided she continued You know let me tell you why. You may not like the answer but Ill tell you why. President Obama had a super PAC when he ran. President Obama took tens of millions of dollars from contributors. And President Obama was not at all influenced when he made the decision to pass and sign Dodd-Frank the toughest regulations on Wall Street in many a year."
Was the Great O truly not influenced? Not at all? Not even a teensy weensy little bit? Not perhaps by the big businesses that like such regulations as Dodd-Frank . . . because burdensome regulations cripple their competition preventing American consumers from being served by innovative upstart companies? Is Obama simply above mere mortal temptations?
Note that Clinton offered no full-throated defense for her fundraising behavior merely two sly excuses: (1) Obama did it too (so if you like Obama vote for Hillary) and (2) neither Mr. Obama nor Hillary can be bought or even ever-so-slightly influenced by campaign contributions nor could any Democrat in good standing with the Clintons for that matter.
Meaning of course there really isnt any need for the intrusive First Amendment-repealing campaign finance regulation pushed by Mrs. Clinton. If its no big deal when special interests with mega-business before the federal government shower a candidate with tens of millions in campaign contributions plus plying that same powerful politician with paid speeches at $225000 a pop (and lets not even open the can of worms that is the Clinton Foundation) whats the point of regulation?
Listen to Hillary Clinton. Theres no problem. At all.
Unless perchance the candidate happens to be a Republican.
Last weeks debate then moved on to the Wall Street speeches that so enriched but in no way influenced Mrs. Clinton. Sanders has been harping on her to release transcripts of those lucrative speeches; Clinton has steadfastly refused. So Id like to ask you" CNNs Dana Bash said to Hillary . . . if theres nothing in those speeches that you think would change voters minds why not just release the transcripts and put this whole issue to bed?"
Again former Secretary of State Clinton emphatically announced that she had stood up against the behaviors of the banks" and called them out." No special interest influence to see here. Move along.
Secretary Clinton called them out" mocked Sen. Sanders. Oh my goodness they must have been really crushed by this. And was that before or after you received huge sums of money by giving speaking engagements?"
In fact an anonymous attendee at one of Hillarys Goldman Sachs speeches toldPolitico that releasing her remarks would bury her against Sanders. It really makes her look like an ally of the firm." Rather than the anti-Wall Street crusader Hillary claims to be today another person in the audience said She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director."
Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted. She may be the least genuine most dishonest and corrupt person . . . to ever become president.
Paul Jacob is President of Citizens in Charge Foundation and Citizens in Charge. His daily Common Sense commentary appears on the Web and via e-mail.
You dont become the all-time world champion cattle futures trader without a keen sense for numbers and timing . . . and bull. So of course when Hillary Clinton was challenged at last Thursdays presidential debate in New York she instinctively knew to hide behind Barack Obamas suit.
The Real Clear Politics average of voter surveys shows 87 percent of Democrats are totally in sync with President Obama. Theres no accounting for taste. Up that to 91 percent for African-Americans the critical voting block that has saved Mrs. Clinton against her rival Sen. Bernie Sanders.
With tensions rising and rhetoric sharpening in the approach to this Tuesdays Empire State Primary Sen. Sanders acknowledged early in the debate that Hillary indeed had the experience and the intelligence to be a president." He quickly added however But I do question her judgement."
As Exhibit A Bernie again introduced Hillarys vote for the Iraq War which he opposed calling it the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country." Next the Vermont senator hit Clintons support for numerous trade agreements which cost us millions of decent-paying jobs." Last but not least Sanders offered And I question her judgment about running super PACs which are collecting tens of millions of dollars from special interests including $15 million from Wall Street."
I dont believe that that is" he concluded to thunderous applause from the Democratic audience the kind of judgment we need to be the kind of president we need."
Confronted on the national stage with her prime liability i.e. nobody in their right mind trusts her Hillary Clinton resorted to the age-old little kid dodge: Well Obama did it!
Make no mistake about it" Hillary told the crowd this is not just an attack on me its an attack on President Obama."
When the booing subsided she continued You know let me tell you why. You may not like the answer but Ill tell you why. President Obama had a super PAC when he ran. President Obama took tens of millions of dollars from contributors. And President Obama was not at all influenced when he made the decision to pass and sign Dodd-Frank the toughest regulations on Wall Street in many a year."
Was the Great O truly not influenced? Not at all? Not even a teensy weensy little bit? Not perhaps by the big businesses that like such regulations as Dodd-Frank . . . because burdensome regulations cripple their competition preventing American consumers from being served by innovative upstart companies? Is Obama simply above mere mortal temptations?
Note that Clinton offered no full-throated defense for her fundraising behavior merely two sly excuses: (1) Obama did it too (so if you like Obama vote for Hillary) and (2) neither Mr. Obama nor Hillary can be bought or even ever-so-slightly influenced by campaign contributions nor could any Democrat in good standing with the Clintons for that matter.
Meaning of course there really isnt any need for the intrusive First Amendment-repealing campaign finance regulation pushed by Mrs. Clinton. If its no big deal when special interests with mega-business before the federal government shower a candidate with tens of millions in campaign contributions plus plying that same powerful politician with paid speeches at $225000 a pop (and lets not even open the can of worms that is the Clinton Foundation) whats the point of regulation?
Listen to Hillary Clinton. Theres no problem. At all.
Unless perchance the candidate happens to be a Republican.
Last weeks debate then moved on to the Wall Street speeches that so enriched but in no way influenced Mrs. Clinton. Sanders has been harping on her to release transcripts of those lucrative speeches; Clinton has steadfastly refused. So Id like to ask you" CNNs Dana Bash said to Hillary . . . if theres nothing in those speeches that you think would change voters minds why not just release the transcripts and put this whole issue to bed?"
Again former Secretary of State Clinton emphatically announced that she had stood up against the behaviors of the banks" and called them out." No special interest influence to see here. Move along.
Secretary Clinton called them out" mocked Sen. Sanders. Oh my goodness they must have been really crushed by this. And was that before or after you received huge sums of money by giving speaking engagements?"
In fact an anonymous attendee at one of Hillarys Goldman Sachs speeches toldPolitico that releasing her remarks would bury her against Sanders. It really makes her look like an ally of the firm." Rather than the anti-Wall Street crusader Hillary claims to be today another person in the audience said She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director."
Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted. She may be the least genuine most dishonest and corrupt person . . . to ever become president.
Paul Jacob is President of Citizens in Charge Foundation and Citizens in Charge. His daily Common Sense commentary appears on the Web and via e-mail.
