By now people have seen Hillary Clinton’s poor responses on CNN when asked why she took so much money in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs and how she thinks that receiving so much money as income cannot possibly contaminate any policies she would come up with to regulate Wall Street if she become POTUS. In effect she said this is a non-issue like Benghazi, emails, etc. and she only did the same thing other secretaries of state did after they left the cabinet. Except this is not a non-issue and those other secretaries of state did not decide to run for the Democratic presidential nomination.
I loved the tweets of some people who have worked for her and her husband. They are appalled that she hasn't come up with a coherent response that puts the question to rest even though she knows this is hanging over her head. It's as if she is using her excellent appearance before the Benghazi panel, which was a clearly political and vulgar attack on her, to say she doesn't need to put up with any other issues.
It is the exact same thing Nixon did with his Checkers speech. His enemies pointed at something that was perfectly ethical and responsible and he honestly responded that the only thing he and his wife had accepted as a personal gift was their dog Checkers. After that, he could always claim accurately that he had been a victim of a political effort to undermine his credibility and inaccurately that other attacks were equally spurious.
Nixon used that incident successfully for 22 years. It has been 22 years since HRC was first attacked for her work with The Rose Law Firm, her law partner's suicide, and Whitewater. Is history repeating itself?
Do not get me wrong. Nixon had an outstanding record as president with most of his foreign and domestic policies. Objectively speaking, his legislative agenda was very progressive. He was successful precisely because he was so good at politics. HRC is similar in many ways and equally as admirable on many issues. Her supporters are claiming that she can get things done that Bernie can't because she is so good at politics. They are right about her skills but are denigrating the ways Bernie achieves things through educating others rather than convincing others.
The problem is that people who are very good at politics also are very good at deceiving people that they are doing nothing wrong. Convincing people to agree with you is the number one characteristic of a great politician.
Politicians act primarily to promote their own interests, not to represent the people who vote for
them but to remain popular enough to get those votes. They will do anything to succeed. And with one defeat in the record books in 2008, HRC is not likely to hold back in 2016 if she thinks she will be defeated again. That is not an attack on her. It is a reasonable assessment of position and her background.