The New York Times has the article Hillary Clinton, in Roosevelt Island Speech, Pledges to Close Income Gap.
I am dying to get my hands on a video of her full speech. I’ll keep looking. As “the newspaper of record”, you’d think that the NYT could give you a link to the full speech rather than to 50 seconds of it.
I had an epiphany when I read one quote.
Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called the speech “chock-full of hypocritical attacks, partisan rhetoric and ideas from the past that led to a sluggish economy.”
To a Republican, a sluggish economy means that the top 1% didn’t get all the income growth. Sadly, the top 1% had to share the income growth with others in the economy in previous “sluggish growth” periods. If you look at the current meteoric rise of the economy, the upper 1% got almost all of it, and the bottom 99% got almost none of it. Now that’s economic growth as Republicans like to see it. If you are in the bottom 99%, why aren’t you happy for the good fortune of the top 1%? Are you envious of their success? Snap out of it, and hew to the Republican propaganda machine.
As for the hypocrisy, I will provide the “evidence” in a subsequent post, Why has President Obama been willing to spend so much political capital on the Trans Pacific Partnership?
The hypocrisy would be if Hillary Clinton still believes that what her husband’s administration did on killing regulation was a good thing. Those actions were strongly desired by Republicans and detested by many Democrats at that time. No wonder a Republican spokesperson would call it hypocrisy if Hillary Clinton now denounces the very policies that made the economy soar for the 1%, and dive for the 99%.
Why won’t any lame stream media interviewer pose the following question to Hillary Clinton? “Here is an issue that you are going to have to confront. You now say that you want policies that are diametrically opposite of some of what your husband did in his administration. Can you explain to us what you think of those past policies in light of what you propose now?” To the degree that she ducks and weaves as opposed to making a straightforward response has a lot to do with whether I could ever vote for her were she to become the Democratic nominee.
The answer as to why the lame stream media reporters won’t ask this question is that their bosses wouldn’t like the premise and probably would not like the answer no matter how it was couched.
If the question were posed to Bernie Sanders as to what Hillary thinks about this, I can imagine him saying, “Now that is an excellent question for you to pose directly to Hillary Clinton. Why don’t you ask it? Are you too chicken?” I bet the reporters would find a way to duck that challenge. They want Bernie Sanders to do their job for them, and yes, they are too chicken to do it themselves.