Mandatory Assault Weapons Now!
Socialism Versus Nature
Mike Pence's Ill-Starred Presidential Run
Bold Truth-Telling Is Out on Biden's Old Age
Disney Works to Destroy the Values That Built Its Company
Woke Corporations Are Attacking American Values
MS-13: From El Salvador to Your Neighborhood
The Slugger Was a Pitcher
If It’s Not Open Warfare, It’s Collusive Lawfare
Paul, Cruz Stand Up to Big Pharma
The Biden Administration Still Insists That Cannabis Consumers Have No Right to Arms
The Holes in Interpol – The Case of Alex Saab
LOL: Lori Lightfoot Lands Plum Gig Teaching ‘Health Policy and Leadership’ at Harvard
Americans Don’t Need Washington to Drive Up the Price of Air Travel
Liberal Colleges Should Assume the Burden of Student Debt

Ambition vs. Conviction on the Debate Stage

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

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.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Video