Now let's move on recent events regarding Clinton and her involvement with Goldman Sachs. At the end of last year Clinton took approx. $400,000 dollars for two speeches from Goldman Sachs. That's a lot of money for just a couple of speeches and the last time I check she does not any experience on running a big bank like Goldman Sachs. In my opinion that $400,000 was a bribe from Goldman Sachs to Clinton personally just in case she decides to run for President in '16. I know this is strong language on my part but I call it as I see it. If she was a real liberal with principles she would've never taken the money from Goldman Sachs in order to suck up to the oligarchs. In order to prove my point I'm going to quote from a piece from "The Atlantic" called "Why Liberal Democrats Are Skeptical of Hillary Clinton, in One Paragraph" and I'm going to quote that paragraph because it's important.
"But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Jim O’Neill, the laconic Brit who heads the bank’s asset management division, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000)."
In her speech Clinton acts like the big banks like Goldman Sachs are the victims in her speeches and that's patently false or at least disingenuous. The problem that I had with her speeches is that the crash of 2008 were the big banks fault and the government's as well for deregulating the banks and the deregulation that started with her husband President Bill Clinton back in 1999 right before he left office and continued with President Bush which lead to the 2008 wall street crash.
Now to wrap this up I have some questions for the women and the liberals that are supporting Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. Why are you supporting her is it only because she is a woman and it's time to have the first female President? If Clinton was a real liberal would she taken $400,000 dollars from Goldman Sachs in order to suck up to them. These are important questions to ask yourselves before 2016 and I hope that you are able to answer these questions honestly or else the little progress we've made on regulating the big banks will disappear once Hillary Clinton gets elected President. I do believe that it's time for a female President however I don't think that woman should be Hillary Clinton I'm just not convinced.
Link to The Atlantic piece: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/
