A quiet, “low-key” visit to New Hampshire turned into a political quagmire for Hillary Clinton last week. While Clinton wanted to focus on her tightly-scripted and controlled events with “everyday Americans” (translation: highly-vetted Democratic activists), all anyone else wanted to talk about was pay-to-play allegations involving Clinton’s time at the State Department and the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Clinton’s camp was hoping for positive headlines during her inaugural trip to the home of the all important First In The Nation primary, but the editorials below from key regional outlets show she got anything but:
Elizabeth Warren’s crusade against the 1 percent has the aura of authenticity, even if her methods would wind up further tightening the elite’s grip on Washington. By contrast, Hillary waves a wooden sword in the air, shouts lines lifted from Warren speeches, and dismisses with an unconvincing fake laugh all questions about how she became one of the 1 percent herself.
This is the same woman who claimed her family was “dead broke” as they left the White House, though they bought a $2.85 million mansion during Bill’s last month in office. By 2004, she was the 10th wealthiest member of the millionaire’s club called the U.S. Senate. She wants to topple the 1 percent as much as Donald Trump does.
The Clintons have not changed since the 1990s. They are still the same dishonest, calculating frauds they always have been. Anyone who does not see that is blinded by partisanship. Or cash.
That’s what got Common Cause aggravated enough to put out a statement from its president, Miles Rapoport, saying, “That lack of transparency creates a clear risk of undue influence and conflicts of interest.”
Yes, there’s that. And there’s the more basic question of how the State Department — under Mrs. Clinton — could acquiesce to a deal that puts large portions of a strategic natural resource under foreign control.
A Clinton campaign spokesman insisted to the Times that the matter did not rise to the secretary’s level.
So either Mrs. Clinton was clueless or ethically compromised. Somehow neither seems a good quality in a presidential contender.