Why Wall Street speeches mattered? Because they mattered to HRC's preparation for candidacy
Last edited Sat Feb 6, 2016, 12:57 PM - Edit history (2)
Let's be honest. She's been working for the presidency for a long time. Some say since the late 90s. Personally I think earlier, but I don't think there is much doubt that she's been preparing a run since the 2008 loss. Consequently this can't be seen as completely the activity of a person for private reasons (although I've heard attempts to make the 'private citizen' argument on leftwing radio)
That said, a relevant question is how important was giving those speeches to her preparation for this run? I think it was pretty important. She leans neo-liberal (by which I mean she's been generally friendly to financials deregulation, free-trade agreements, and pretty accepting of privatization). Now that isn't terribly surprising since that philosophy has been quite popular in elite circles for the past 30 years or so, the timeframe in which she grew her appetite for politics and high office.
So, in seeking her run at power, it's important for multiple reasons that she projected herself with being aligned with that philosophy. That philosophy is after all what the smart/pragmatic politicians do. And while some of us disagree with it, it's been successful in American politics and in Europe, too. So she gave speeches to groups that allowed her to show alignment with the philosophy and to also make valuable connections that would facilitate a presidential run with dominant, some would argue overwhelming financial support. Taking hundreds of thousands while shoring up her relationships with potential sources of campaign money has all the markings of a win-win. It surely contributed to her restoration after the problem of being broke after leaving the WH.
And that's where some of the problem likely lies... at a destination on the path of the democratic party that Clinton didn't expect to be encountered...broad disenchantment with New Dem/Third-way neoliberalism. New Dem politics have never been especially popular with the democratic left. But the left, had no power, and no options. You know that left...the progressive left, people who New Dems/neoliberals have publicly and privately disdained with similar vitriol to Emmanuel's remarks about them being F'ing Ret***s. People who were out there on the left criticizing politics/economics when the 2008 crash and the lopsided recovery happened. People who the base suddenly noticed when in their disenchantment with the lopsided recovery they moved left, and took their expectations for the democratic party with them. Clinton's investment was based on status quo politics, the shift in the base suddenly gave the left an option, and they've run cheering toward that exit, and the visages of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders standing at the door.
The problem with Clinton's speeches is that they mattered to her, very much. They were part of her disciplined preparation for her presidential run in 2016. It's clear that many years ago, she made a serious, seemingly well considered, strategic decision about how to establish herself to make this run. Among many things she did (in what truly must be greatly respected as a long and disciplined positioning that -really did- lead to her being the best prepared candidate for the race she -thought- she would be in), she aligned herself with the power elite...those with money and corporate power. Sadly, the race isn't what she thought it was going to be. The shift left of the democratic base who feel the economic disparity of the lopsided recovery has changed their attitude about the failing of neo-liberalism long supported by New Dems. That has left people disaffected about corporate wealth, the oligarchy and privilege it creates and maintains, as well as reconsideration of the policies (including Bill Clinton era policies) that led to the 2008 crash. Perhaps it's led to popular resentment of those who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars as paid performers for the oligarchs. The "system" as Elizabeth Warren has plainly said is rigged, and this, too, is where those big payments for short workdays really matter: Hillary is perceived as having benefited by that. The more people look at her time as first lady, senator, and secretary of state they see reflections of HRC as having a long association with what in 2016's climate is seen as the sad path that took us here.
Is that fair? Well, certainly it wouldn't feel that way to HRC. All she did was work at aligning herself with those who pretty obviously were empowered to help her make her run at being the first Madam President. It wouldn't feel that way to supporters of New Dem politics who also align themselves with neo-liberal thirdwayism.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Well thought out and well stated. 
