Hillary’s Defense: Obama Did It

Paul Jacob
|
Posted: Apr 17, 2016 12:01 AM
Hillary’s Defense: Obama Did It

You don’t become the all-time world champion cattle futures trader without a keen sense for numbers and timing . . . and bull. So, of course, when Hillary Clinton was challenged at last Thursday’s presidential debate in New York, she instinctively knew to hide behind Barack Obama’s suit.

The Real Clear Politics average of voter surveys shows 87 percent of Democrats are totally in sync with President Obama. There’s no accounting for taste. Up that to 91 percent for African-Americans, the critical voting block that has saved Mrs. Clinton against her rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders.

With tensions rising and rhetoric sharpening in the approach to this Tuesday’s Empire State Primary, Sen. Sanders acknowledged early in the debate that Hillary indeed had the “experience and the intelligence to be a president.” He quickly added, however, “But I do question her judgement.”

As Exhibit A, Bernie again introduced Hillary’s vote for the Iraq War, which he opposed — calling it “the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country.” Next, the Vermont senator hit Clinton’s support for numerous trade agreements, “which cost us millions of decent-paying jobs.” Last, but not least, Sanders offered, “And I question her judgment about running super PACs which are collecting tens of millions of dollars from special interests, including $15 million from Wall Street.”

“I don’t believe that that is,” he concluded to thunderous applause from the Democratic audience, “the kind of judgment we need to be the kind of president we need.”

Confronted on the national stage with her prime liability, i.e. nobody in their right mind trusts her, Hillary Clinton resorted to the age-old little kid dodge: Well, Obama did it!

“Make no mistake about it,” Hillary told the crowd, “this is not just an attack on me, it’s an attack on President Obama.”

When the booing subsided, she continued, “You know, let me tell you why. You may not like the answer, but I’ll tell you why. President Obama had a super PAC when he ran. President Obama took tens of millions of dollars from contributors. And President Obama was not at all influenced when he made the decision to pass and sign Dodd-Frank, the toughest regulations on Wall Street in many a year.”

Was the Great O truly not influenced? Not at all? Not even a teensy weensy little bit? Not, perhaps, by the big businesses that like such regulations as Dodd-Frank . . . because burdensome regulations cripple their competition, preventing American consumers from being served by innovative upstart companies? Is Obama simply above mere mortal temptations?

Note that Clinton offered no full-throated defense for her fundraising behavior, merely two sly excuses: (1) Obama did it, too (so if you like Obama, vote for Hillary) and (2) neither Mr. Obama nor Hillary can be bought or even ever-so-slightly influenced by campaign contributions — nor could any Democrat in good standing with the Clintons, for that matter.

Meaning, of course, there really isn’t any need for the intrusive, First Amendment-repealing campaign finance regulation pushed by Mrs. Clinton. If it’s no big deal when special interests with mega-business before the federal government shower a candidate with tens of millions in campaign contributions, plus plying that same powerful politician with paid speeches at $225,000 a pop (and let’s not even open the can of worms that is the Clinton Foundation), what’s the point of regulation? 

Listen to Hillary Clinton. There’s no problem. At all. 

Unless, perchance, the candidate happens to be a Republican. 

Last week’s debate then moved on to the Wall Street speeches that so enriched, but in no way influenced Mrs. Clinton. Sanders has been harping on her to release transcripts of those lucrative speeches; Clinton has steadfastly refused. “So I’d like to ask you,” CNN’s Dana Bash said to Hillary, “. . . if there’s nothing in those speeches that you think would change voters’ minds, why not just release the transcripts and put this whole issue to bed?”

Again, former Secretary of State Clinton emphatically announced that she had “stood up against the behaviors of the banks” and “called them out.” No special interest influence to see here. Move along.

“Secretary Clinton called them out,” mocked Sen. Sanders. “Oh my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this. And was that before or after you received huge sums of money by giving speaking engagements?”

In fact, an anonymous attendee at one of Hillary’s Goldman Sachs speeches, told Politico that releasing her remarks “would bury her against Sanders. It really makes her look like an ally of the firm.” Rather than the anti-Wall Street crusader Hillary claims to be today, another person in the audience said, “She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted. She may be the least genuine, most dishonest and corrupt person . . . to ever become president.