Clinton’s emails are not new news and, as Bernie Sanders said at the first Democratic primary debate, “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about” them. That being said, I’m sure we’ve all nonetheless been privy to the stereotypical, ultra-conservative uncle who wants to see her jailed for deleting some thousands of emails and pleading the fifth. However, as was determined by the FBI, everything she did was, whether you agree with it or not, deemed legal. Again, not new news. Inquiring any further into “emailgate” is equivalent to beating a dead horse with a pool noodle.
What is new and important, however, is the most recent WikiLeaks data dump involving, yet again, Clinton’s emails. This time the general focus isn’t on what she did with them, but, instead, on their content.
Sure, Clinton Campaign chair John Podesta called Bernie Sanders a doofus and an aide called Chelsea Clinton a brat, but that’s not the point. The emails and their content very clearly validate the current critique echoed by progressives that Hillary Clinton is too close to Wall Street. She, in a series of leaked Wall Street transcripts, wants “open borders” and thought that politics would be better if “successful business people” were involved with civil service. This is a serious problem for her and is often marred by the current “Trump-mania” that occupies the airtime of every major news outlet. We should be talking about this.
Clinton has said, time and time again, that her closeness to Wall Street doesn’t mean she will forever bend in their favor. However, we know that has not been the case historically. Progressivism and labor are, by nature, adversary to big money. Management and Wall Street aren’t supposed to be friendly with the rank-and-file union members simply because their interests directly conflict. Once a friendship develops, its hard to remain vigilant and maintain those key interests.
The leaked emails underscore this. For starters, Clinton thinks Wall Street insiders should play in active role in fixing Wall Street. She also thinks that the crash of 2008 was a matter of “misunderstanding” and that the blame can’t be placed on anyone specifically. And, perhaps most troublingly, she thinks the people that know how to regulate the industry best are the people that manage it. To some, this may seem like harmless rhetoric, but what I hear is that Wall Street, according to Clinton, should be even more independent of the government and relatively autonomous. Once a sitting president, she has the power to make this happen.
So the question is, to whom does she own her allegiance? The common man or the Wall Street banker? This is a serious question and to pivot away from it and blame the Russians is doing her no justice. Clinton only looks more shady, more secretive and more untrustworthy than before, and this plays very well into the hand of Donald Trump and his camp. To honestly and openly address it would be in her favor and would calm the very legitimate concerns that some Bernie supports have with her.
There are options here — she could claim she has changed and cite the progressive Democratic Party platform. She could attempt to clarify her statements by giving some context. She could even defend some of her more controversial statements — some kind of substantive response is warranted.
I understand that Russian involvement is problematic and any degree of tampering with our historically fair and free elections is criminal. However, this does not mean that one facet of this scandal should totally usurp the other in our national discourse. We can have two conversations. Regardless of who did it or how they did it, Clinton still said those things. She, at least at one point, felt that way. That’s important.
Clinton needs to sit down with the American people and have a meaningful conversation. She’s got great sound-bites about fighting for the working people, but it falters in comparison to these intimate speeches to Wall Street. We deserve clarification.
