In an election in which the narrative has shifted to address themes which can be summed up as the 1% vs. the 99%, (a narrative which resonates with a lot of people as it turns out) and which features someone whose stock in trade is calling for addressing these very issues, connections to the 1% are going to be a natural and heavy liability.
If a candidate’s efforts to assert that receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking to 1%ers won’t lead to undue influence can be derailed by asking what the candidate said to them, then in today’s political climate, that candidate is on shaky ground. It’s especially bad when the candidate’s opponent is able to make light of it by noting that his speech is out there and the comparatively miniscule fee he received for speaking was donated to charity, and be done with it.
But here’s another issue: The “establishment”, or, our Government in general, including both major parties, with very few exceptions – certainly not enough at this point to make any difference, exists for one reason: influence peddling. The Government has been sold. That’s long since over and done with. Since that’s settled, it’s all about the marketing and who has the most influence to sell. Think of it as a shopping mall with a variety of different stores which occasionally change – big chains and small boutiques. Lots of revolving doors. 99% of us can’t afford to shop there. That’s the political reality, the “establishment” that people seek to reject. (Establishment is a way to refer to a place of business…)
The timing of all of this is unfortunate for a woman whose experiences, battles and struggles make her the best and most obvious choice to lead a great enterprise. It’s unfortunate because it’s an enterprise whose time has passed. It’s unfortunate to watch a candidate try to distance herself from a world which she has thrived in, which she was an architect of, which she so transparently represents. That transparency is what so many right now are fighting to deny, and it isn’t working.