When pressed about her close ties with Wall St funders, Mrs. Clinton inexplicably evoked former NYC Mayor and Republican Pres. Candidate (and GOP frontrunner in late 2007) Rudy Giuliani, known for his repeated use of the 9/11 tragedy to cheaply score political points, when she very uncomfortably shifted her answer from the question to make a non-sequitur about 9/11.
As if the strange and out-of-place comment wasn’t enough (and quite frankly insulting to anyone who was in NYC at the time), Clinton then went straight from that to her now familiar go-to of pandering to women voters.
(Snark, obviously)
Apparently a lot of other politicos thought so too. When it happened it struck many as one of those “wow” moments. For those who have deep reservations about her close associations to Wall St her flailing was an eye-opener. For many of us, turning over the keys to the White House again to the same family from 23 years ago, her military hawkishness, and questionable judgement on matters of gay rights, police brutality, trade deals and workers rights, are highly problematic.
It’s got to be said again. The pathetic and cheap evocation of 9/11, to distract from her extensive Wall St connections, was truly a stunner. It was one of the debate’s biggest takeaways, besides Sanders’ masterful responses to police brutality/institutional racism and nailing the Economic Terrorists of Wall St as a place where fraud is central to their business plan.
This is exactly the kind of legitimate criticism that will not easily be quelled. When the cold light of campaign finance came down on her last night there was no place to hide. And she clumsily and embarrassingly attempted a pathetic answer to avoid the obvious implications, which Sanders made clear. When the coal, health insurance, and oil companies give such big money, are they giving out of the kindest of their hearts? Every voter knows it’s a quid pro quo system, and most people loathe the Big Banks for their greed and deceitful practices. Only an intellectually dishonest, deeply naive or willfully ignorant person would be expected to be gullible enough to believe otherwise. She’s way too close to them, and it was clear as day.
It was a revealing insight into her psyche, as much as anything can possibly be gleaned from a debate performance.
Concerns like this, “Wall Street has made Hillary Clinton a millionaire,” are not about to go away. Especially in an ongoing economic slog in which so many are being ground up in, barely making ends meet. The thought of a president catering to the wealthiest 1% is angering to many.
As Clinton tries to talk tough about how she will stand up to America's biggest banks, her Democratic rivals are likely to remind voters just how cozy she's been with Wall Street.
Clinton made $3.15 million in 2013 alone from speaking to firms like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and UBS, according to the list her campaign released of her speaking fees.
This one could linger on…
(hat tip to Sam Seder, who I first heard the term 9/11 Tourette’s from).
More, from all over the Interwebs:
Slate: Hillary Says It’s OK That She Takes Wall Street Money Because of Women and 9/11
Policy.Mic: Hillary Clinton Gets Called Out for Invoking 9/11 to Justify Wall Street Donations
Washington Post: Hillary Clinton invoked 9/11 to to answer a question about Wall Street, and Twitter was not happy
Buzzfeed has the full text