Hillary Rodham Clinton stuck with her centrist persona Monday when her presidential campaign delved into the Social Security debate, ignoring liberals’ calls to expand benefits even as she bemoaned the plight of a New Hampshire woman forced out of retirement and back to work because of skimpy benefit checks.
The former secretary of state pressed the woman during a roundtable discussion to reveal her monthly Social Security income to highlight the problems faced by seniors. She asked for the financial information even though her campaign repeatedly refused to say whether the 67-year-old candidate collects benefits herself or how much she pockets.
Mrs. Clinton said only that as president she would be “100 percent committed” to providing retirees a good quality of life.
The exchange at the event with workers at Whitney Bros., a children’s furniture and toy manufacturer in Keene, New Hampshire, underscored Mrs. Clinton’s cautious approach to her party’s progressive wing.
She has been under intense pressure from her Democratic Party’s left wing to embrace a plan to expand Social Security benefits and pay for it with increased taxes on wealthy Americans.
Speaking of Grandma’s insatiable greed, even more questions have arisen over her and Slick’s shady finances.
The financial portfolio of Hillary Clinton, her family and the Clinton Foundation is under new scrutiny, worrying some Democrats, as the former secretary of State begins her 2016 campaign.
The New York Times fired the starting pistol on another round of stories about the Clinton finances with a story on Monday morning describing a forthcoming book, Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweizer, a fellow at Stanford University’s conservative Hoover Institution.
The Times called the tome “the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.”
The book’s allegations were summed up in the author’s own words: “We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefitting those providing the funds.”
Allies to the newly announced Democratic presidential hopeful immediately pushed back on the book, but that has not settled nerves within the party.
“Where the unease comes from is that it’s going to be one of those things that the right keeps hammering them on,” one Democratic consultant who wished to remain anonymous said, referring to donations to the Clinton Foundation. “It is one of the things that they are going to have to address sooner or later — preferably sooner.”
The consultant, who is not affiliated with any of the politicians likely to challenge Clinton for the nomination, stressed that there was no evidence the foundation had engaged in shady practices.
The worry, instead, was that the former first lady would get distracted from her preferred subjects by having to respond to the allegations, only weeks after she was in the eye of a storm about her use of a private email server while secretary of State.
Yes, questions about this are mere distractions for here, while any Republican with such a dubious trail would be mercilessly hounded by the media and their political future destroyed. But hey, she’s gave a whole minute and 41 seconds to reporters, so she’s answered all the questions or something.