Hillary Clinton is back in the spotlight with another swathe of leaked emails showing her true character. The freshly released Wikileaks Podesta Emails show that even her own research director, Tony Carrk, was concerned by her words and attitudes. Carrk sent an email to John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chairman, which was filled with flagged excerpts from her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other top financial companies, who paid her over $150 million for her speeches.
The email begins by Hillary admitting that she is “out of touch” and “far removed” from normal Americans due to the “economic fortunes that my husband and I enjoy”. It is true that a major reason people became disillusioned with Hillary is because of the millions of dollars she raised while in politics. At least she has the integrity to admit that she’s actually “far removed” from the people she’s supposed to represent, albeit the latter’s lack of knowledge of it.
However, her integrity appears questionable after she emphasises the need to balance private and public efforts in order to “be successful, politically”. What does she mean by that? Is she subtly revealing her intention of attaining her own ambitions using politics instead of actually serving the people? I wouldn’t be surprised because this is a woman who accepted millions of dollars of donations from Islamic countries that kill and torture homosexuals while systematically persecuting women, two groups in society she pretends to be aligned with. This notion is further supported by her statement, “…politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least”. Back room discussions and deals, eh? Like the ones you have with your gay-hating donors?
Another eye-opener is Carrk saying “CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS” in the email. Hillary claims that “politicising what happened” would’ve helped the US banking system avoid being blamed for the financial crisis. However, she does talk about “greater transparency” in this “politicising” process. In addition, Hillary praises financial giants, which she openly criticises in her campaigns, by stating “it’s important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to”. Hillary, who are you really? One minute you’re blaming them and the next minute you’re praising their contribution to the economy? She even draws connections between herself and Wall Street by saying “if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us”, almost as if she is in solidarity with the financial sector. She even advocates a free market economy by saying “we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy”. I ask again, Hillary, who are you?
Additionally, she seems to advocate self-regulation of the financial industry by saying “there’s more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself”. She does call for a moderate level of regulations and says “too much is bad”, before again stating “And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry”.
This statement also caught my attention: “Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you’re out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours”. So she attacks Donald Trump in public but behind closed doors she appreciates “crazy ideas”? Remember, this is the woman who said “Every time I think about Trump, I get allergic” at her Cleveland rally.
She resumes her show of solidarity with Wall Street by saying “Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it”. This is before she blames regulations and politicians as causing the financial crisis in “I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in ’08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.”
The speeches also portrayed how she undermined her own political image by switching between the “moderate” and “progressive” labels. “I’m a progressive who gets results and I will be a progressive president who gets results,” she once said. But here she is telling her Wall Street friends that she thinks both US parties should be “moderate”.
Clinton is “pro-Keystone”, at least according to her speeches. This is in stark contrast to her current opposition towards Keystone, a pipeline that would transport crude oil from Western Canada into the US. Speaking of Canada, Hillary also said that she supports the country’s “single-payer systems” because of their supposed ability to “get costs down”. But it seems like her mood has changed because currently she is against single-payer systems, and even attacked Bernie Sanders for supporting them.
Clinton also used the phrase “bucket of losers” to refer to a certain number of Americans. It is not certain who exactly constitutes the “bucket of losers”, however it does include some “low social capital individuals”. As such it is clear that this “bucket” includes are large amount of American people. Aren’t “low social capital individuals” the people she’s supposed to represent? There are even some claims that suggest Hillary is actually referring to Sanders supporters and the entire left-wing through this phrase. Hang on, isn’t she the one who flaunts her progressive left-wing character? Here we have a political candidate using profanities behind closed doors to refer to the people she pretends to represent.
The new leaks reinforce the notion that Hillary possesses a fake, two-faced persona. She lacks integrity and seems to be only motivated by hubris in her political efforts. She has a deep relationship with Wall Street, which I don’t personally mind, but this is something her own supports are probably oblivious too. And lastly, this candidate believes many Americans are a “bucket of losers”.