Skip to comments.Ambition vs. Conviction on the Debate Stage
Posted on 02/06/2016 6:25:11 AM PST by Kaslin
In the last Democratic debate before the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton came up with her fourth explanation for the gluttonous speaking fees and campaign contributions that the financial sector and investment firms -- "Wall Street," in liberal shorthand -- have been showering on her for so long.
Explanation No. 1, you'll recall, was the one about her family being "dead broke" when they left the White House and needing "the resources for mortgages for houses." Explanation No. 2, uncorked during a debate last November, was that all that money came her way because "I represented New York on 9/11, when we were attacked." Explanation No. 3 was the one she gave on Wednesday's CNN broadcast, when Anderson Cooper asked if it was appropriate for her to accept nearly $700,000 for three speeches to Goldman Sachs: "I don't know -- that's what they offered."
Rachel Maddow put the question to Clinton once again during Thursday's MSNBC debate. Lo and behold, she was ready with yet another rationale: "They wanted me to talk about the world, what my experience had been as secretary of state." Wall Street firms were no different, she claimed, than all those other audiences that had hired her to speak -- "heart doctors" and the "American Camping Association" and "auto dealers." Why, they just wanted her thoughts and reminiscences on "world affairs," Clinton said serenely. You know, like "how stressful it was advising the president about going after Bin Laden."
Which is why, when a questioner asked if Clinton would release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, her reply was a prompt "Of course!"
Oh, wait, sorry -- I misread my notes: Her reply was actually "I'll look into it." That's Clintonspeak for "Not a chance."
Sure, Bernie Sanders spouted gushers of Socialist nonsense in Thursday night's debate, as he does on the campaign trail daily. Example: "The business model of Wall Street is fraud." Crazy talk? Of course. But when Sanders speaks, no one doubts that every word comes from the heart -- that he means what he says, and that he says it because he means it.
When Clinton speaks, does anyone believe she is sincere? Is there any position she defends today that she isn't capable of abandoning tomorrow?
Sanders is a candidate of pure conviction. Clinton is a candidate of pure ambition. That -- not the finer points of how to socialize US health care or whether Barack Obama is a true progressive -- is what the 2016 Democratic primary choice really comes down to.
Who are these Democrats who would vote for Hillary Clinton?
I do not know anyone who thinks she would be a good President. I do not know anyone who can tell us what she has accomplished? The media must like her because spends money on political advertisements to pay their huge wages.
Those media talking heads must be Democrats, they are in it for the money.
Much like Pauline Kael, you don't hang with a diverse enough crowd to come into contact with hillary's legions. With Ms Kael it was Nixon.
You don’t know anyone who likes her. I don’t know anyone who likes her. But half the RATS in Iowa voted for her. Yeah OK sure....
I know democrats who don’t like her...they don’t trust her either.
Dems voting for Hillary are ones that fit the two traditional categories:
entitlement army members
They don’t particularly like her, they just think she has a better chance of winning in Nov than Burney.
What's really strange is Anderson Cooper asked a real question that wasn't "where can I kiss your democrat butt?". I believe this is the first time in my life I've heard a journalist ask a 'tough' question of a popular democrat.
Then it happened again in the democrat 'debate'... one tough question... Maybe Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow are afraid of being mocked by Saturday Night Live...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.