Hillary Clinton yearns to be a mendicant priest.
She covets a mega-austere existence that betters the instruction of Diogenes.
She needs a substantial palimony reserve in anticipation of future claims against Bill.
These are the fables that Hillary Clinton hopes will be extrapolated from her response to CNN host Anderson Cooper’s question as to why she pocketed $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year.
Mrs. Clinton had no focus group to guide her answer. She probably first flirted with singing “zip-a-dee-doh-dah” as did former House Speaker John Boehner as he departed in ignominy. Then she contemplated swooning.
But she shrewdly settled on the ambiguous, “Well, I don’t know.” Mrs. Clinton apparently intended the audience to believe that she had been drugged or duped into permitting the $675,000 taken from Goldman Sachs’s Fort Knox to be transferred into her bank account without her knowledge or permission. She probably had gotten the idea from Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s expression of consternation when he discovered that Saudi Arabian royalty had wired $681 million to his personal bank account.
Mrs. Clinton stumbled when she supplemented her initial words with, “That’s what they offered,” i.e., if Goldman Sachs had offered more, she would have taken that too. Only an idiot quarrels with a rich benefactor.
At the risk of being unchivalrous, I would suggest that Hillary Clinton sounds like a strumpet explaining why she accepted a handsome offer for her services? But let us not tarry in the sewers and gutters of life.
Mrs. Clinton had no regrets about taking the money. Her religion and human rights agenda compelled her to take a stand with God’s chosen people who had been unfairly killed for worshipping at the Golden Calf.
Mrs. Clinton also protested that “she always wanted to be of service.” She implied that she clucked at pocketing munificent speaking fees from Wall Street to create a jobs program for the sans-culottes with neurotic shopping sprees for designer clothes, cosmetics, flower arrangements, interior decorations, landscaping, or otherwise.
With all the insincerity of Sinclair Lewis’ Elmer Gantry, the Democratic presidential aspirant insisted she empathized with the daily struggles of ordinary Americans. She hinted to the unemployed that if they could not attract speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, they should try Citibank or J.P. Morgan who were only modestly less benevolent — a substantial improvement on Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake” during the French Revolution.
Mrs. Clinton boasted to The New York Times that “the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking.” She must have attention deficit disorder or cognitive indolence. Among other things, the Bible teaches:
• “[I]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God”
• “No one can serve two masters … You cannot serve God and money.”
• Jesus drove the money changers — today’s bankers — from the Temple.
But in Hillary Clinton’s defense ala Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, she tells the smallest untruths consistent with her vaulting ambitions.
If Hillary Clinton epitomizes feminism, the nation will not long survive.