In the continuing saga of why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 Presidential election, yet another explanation has surfaced as to why Mrs. Clinton suffered so humiliating a defeat at the ballot box. It isn’t because she is female, it isn’t due to the Hillbillies in flyover country, and it isn’t because of James Comey. The real reason is:
She’s a capitalist.
If you’ve lost count of Hillary’s various and sundry excuses for her loss, you are not alone. But perhaps this one takes the proverbial cake. At the Shared Values Leadership Summit in New York City this week, Mrs. Clinton was thrown a softball by the president of Fortune, Alan Murray, and in typical Hillary fashion, she went yard. Here’s Mr. Murray’s riveting question:
“You may be the only presidential candidate since World War II who actually had to stand up and say, ‘I am a capitalist,’ and you did. Did it hurt you?”
Did he really say, “the only presidential candidate since World War II”? What about Mitt Romney? How about The Donald? Whatever they were smoking at this summit, it must be illegal. Not one to side-step a rancorous media grilling, Mrs. Clinton reluctantly offered up this rejoinder:
“Probably. It’s hard to know but I mean if you’re in the Iowa caucuses and 41% of Democrats are socialists or self-described socialists, and I’m asked, ‘Are you a capitalist,’ and I say ‘Yes, with appropriate regulation and appropriate accountability,’ that probably gets lost in the, ‘Oh my gosh, she’s a capitalist.’”
Imagine the devastating effect of admitting you are a capitalist in an American presidential campaign? That’s a deal buster. Oops, maybe not since the man she lost to is a capitalist of the first order. Well, Mrs. Clinton did get one thing right: More and more, Democrats are turning to socialism as the answer for all their troubles. But let’s be clear – Hillary did not lose the election because she is a capitalist. She lost the election because she was viewed by many in America as a corrupt, unlikeable candidate.
Not one to quit while she’s behind, the former secretary of state doubled-down on her troubled relationship with capitalism. “The current system is out of balance,” she told Murray, “with too much power tipping toward the biggest companies with the most influence. They’re disrupting our democracy.” Thus, Hillary falls back on the tired and tattered “have” versus “have-nots” line of reasoning.
Do as I say…
Since leaving the White House, the Clinton’s tax returns show that the power couple has made an estimated $240M. While a significant portion of this is attributed to Bill, Hill still managed to bring home the bacon with approximately $51M in book and speaking engagement profits as of 2017. All this despite leaving The Swamp “dead broke” on January 20, 2001. Not too shabby.
Those of us who make up the deplorable proletariat may be wondering why Mrs. Clinton expresses such a tempered and reluctant endorsement of capitalism. It could be that Hillary has turned an old aphorism on its head and pledged allegiance to the creed “What’s good for me is not for thee.”
