2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Sanders DID say it, right to her face, in a previous debate. [View all]DirkGently
(12,151 posts)What I wish the Sanders campaign would articulate a little better is that there is no need to prove, as HRC suggested, that she "changed her vote" on something due to her ties to the financial sector.
It's not a question of quid pro quo corruption. It's a question of point of view. Ms. Clinton eats, sleeps, and breathes Wall Street thinking. Her framing of the financial meltdown as the result of a few insurance firms, i.e. "shadow banking" ignores the fact that the major banks were all eyeballs-deep in the heedless mortgage lending that led to the crisis.
These are her friends. Her colleagues. People who like her well enough to pay her a fortune just to speak with them.
It's not that they are paying her off. It's not that she is trading dollars for votes. That is not the question.
The question is: How do you regulate people with whom you identify as peers and colleagues? People whose point of view you have absorbed through your very skin?
This is not a Hillary Clinton problem. It is a problem with the way everything is done, everywhere. It's not the only problem, or the only thing we need to discuss, but the fact that Ms. Clinton sees everything as fine so long as she is not accepting envelopes full of cash in exchange for American policies is an enormous problem for her and for the rest of our political system.
And she does not seem to want to acknowledge it.