Money and Hillary Clinton

I actually know very little about Hillary
Clinton and money, and neither, 
apparently does anyone else, although there is plenty
of theory and conspiratorial conjecturing going on out there among those who
are either very informed or very paranoid. I don’t know what Hillary intended
in Libya, or in Africa, or in Honduras. There are many who call her the new
Dick Cheney or the new Henry Kissinger and imply that she is a Machiavellian
figure, or perhaps one of the Borgias.

To folks in these particular journalistic circles
she represents the very worst in American politics which has a secretive dark
agenda and sends out our government officials to meddle in the business of
nations around the world, build nations up and tear nations down, all for
cynical reasons having to do with economics and money. Or perhaps Hillary has
no mission to inform her actions but is simply acting on her own. According to
these folks Hillary is a sinister figure who ruins nations when their economies
are getting too successful and are challenging the America economy. Wow! Who
knew Hillary was this powerful and this corrupt? Apparently everyone but me.
Bernie Sanders indicts Hillary for using government
service to get rich. He tells his supporters anecdotes which supposedly prove
that she has offered influence in return for donations from wealthy nations.
Sanders apparently implies that the Clinton Foundation is a front to peddle
influence and line the Clinton’s pockets. He believes that accepting money from
Wall Street proves that you are absolutely corrupt. His followers believe all
this is true beyond a shadow of a doubt and they revile Hillary for this.
Again, I did not ascribe to Hillary even this level of villainy. They say that
Hillary is a criminal who should be indicted for war crimes, or crimes against
humanity, or bribery, or if nothing else sticks, then for the private email
server thing (possibly risking national security).
How naïve am I? I see that half of Congress is made
up of millionaires, many of whom lined their bank accounts while in government
service. I know that Bernie Sanders is solidly against money in politics,
feeling that it robs the people of their right to govern. I agree with him. I
was shocked when Citizen’s United was upheld by the Supreme Court, giving
legitimacy to all the money that floods in and befuddles politics in
Washington. But Hillary came up as a politician operating within the system we
have now. Bernie is a revolutionary who wants to dump the system we have now.
We could possible get money out of politics through a grassroots groundswell,
but it is more likely that it will be tough slog, accomplished in baby steps.
Hillary, as the first woman to get this close to
being an American President, has a foot in the past and a foot in the future.
She cannot be blamed for playing the game according to the rules of the boys
club. We are always changing the rules just when a woman arrives at a
threshold. Bernie’s purity did not help him shine in Congress although it
certainly looks appealing now. But there is no other person in our government
like Bernie Sanders and changing the way our government does business cannot be
as easy as he makes it sound. If Donald Trump is dividing the nation before he
gains the office, then Bernie Sanders is likely to divide it if he becomes our
President. People who have been on the gravy train for years are not going to
gently step aside. If we the people win the day it might be worth the fight,
but we could probably win the day eventually with just good solid strategy if
we had a plan.
I believe that people are painting Hillary as a
villain based on some pretty convoluted reasoning and theorizing. Of course, if
anyone can prove these accusations beyond any doubt then I suppose that Hillary
is too byzantine to make a good President. If she actually treats the globe
like some kind of calculated game of Risk then that is diabolical and she
should be stopped. I just don’t buy it though. 
By Nancy Brisson