Today, the question on
everyone’s mind is “Which Hillary?” The question refers to Hillary Clinton’s
wavering stance on a number of current issues, varying statements about
historical events, and conflicts between her positions on important matters and
her campaign’s financial reality. Conflicting statements made by Clinton over
the past few months have left many American voters viewing Hillary’s platform
as anything but solid. As a result, many are quickly losing faith in Clinton’s
ability to stand firm on important issues.
The most recent incident to
raise the “Which Hillary?” question took place on Wednesday during a Clinton
campaign rally in South Carolina. According to Huffington Post, the event’s interruption was caused by two activists
representing the Black Lives Matter campaign. They asked Clinton to apologize
for a statement she made in 1996 and for policies enacted during Bill Clinton’s
presidency that led to increased mass incarceration of blacks. Their view of
the candidate contradicts the image Hillary Clinton has tried to promote during
her campaign through words of support for black justice. The activists
apparently view Clinton’s words as nothing more than a ploy to win the
African-American vote.
Another topic garnering
attention is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. For those unfamiliar with the TPP,
the government’s website explains it as a deal designed to facilitate trade between U.S. businesses
and 11 countries with borders on the Pacific Ocean. Unsurprisingly, the
government presents the TPP as an agreement with no downside.
In October 2015, CNN published
a report on the TPP and Hillary Clinton, revealing how her stance has
changed between her time as a member of the Obama administration and her presidential
candidacy. During her term as Secretary of State, Clinton was an advocate for
the trade deal, even though it was not an agreement originating in the State
Department. Since beginning her White House bid in earnest, Clinton’s stance
has changed dramatically, and she has now issued statements opposing the
agreement.
Those asking “Which Hillary?”
are not only questioning the differences between Clinton’s historical stances
and current claims, but also the differences between what she says in public
and her private reality. At a campaign event in Nevada in mid-February, Clinton
gave a firm response to a question concerning her stance on Wall Street.
“I take a backseat to nobody
in being very clear about what I will do to make sure Wall Street never crashes
Main Street again, and that you can count on.”
Hillary Clinton’s response
seems to indicate her willingness to take a stand against those on Wall Street
whose actions led to the recession that began in 2008 and caused millions of
Americans to lose homes and jobs.
However, a report in Vanity
Fair questioned the truth in Clinton’s statement because of the huge amount
of financial support her campaign has received from Wall Street. The report
specifically cited a payment of more than $600,000 she received from Goldman
Sachs for a series of speeches.
The “Which Hillary?” question
may seem petty or trite, but it is neither. The American public wants a
candidate it can trust to fulfill promises. The American public wants a
candidate with a solid record on the important issues. The American public is
tired of being fed lies by everyone connected with Washington.
If Hillary Clinton wants to
stop “Which Hillary” from damaging her campaign and her chances of beating
Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination, it is time for her to be
completely honest with the American public. As voters appreciate truthfulness
more and more, she might just find they accept answers like “I supported the
TPP because the president told me to, and he was my boss” or “I supported my
husband’s policies, because he was my husband.” Both of these answers are
statements average Americans can believe, simply because they are answers many
Americans have given themselves.
Finding answers Americans will
accept concerning Clinton’s ties to Wall Street may be much harder. Most
Americans will refuse to believe that a candidate who accepts millions from
corporations will not put their interests first. Hillary Clinton has to assure
the American public that she cannot be bought. Offering to release the
transcripts of her Goldman Sachs-funded speeches might go a long way toward
proving “Which Hillary” she really is.
No comments:
Post a Comment