Hillary in a muddled state over campaign donations

Unscripted moments at campaign stops can drive political candidates insane, can force campaign staffers to go haywire and create the need for unconvincing spin from overworked public-relations personnel.

At a recent campaign event in Iowa, Hillary Clinton learned of the damage to her political realm when she was confronted with a question regarding her campaign’s willingness to accept campaign donations from energy giants.

Steve Patterson, of the environmental group 350Action.org, demanded to know of Clinton’s willingness to inscribe her name on a pledge to reject campaign donations from fossil fuel companies similar to her Democratic counterparts, Senator Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.

“Well, I don’t know that I ever have.  I’m not exactly one of their favorites,” replied Clinton.

Patterson immediately retorted Clinton had accepted donations, to which Clinton countered with an indication she would check into the reality her campaign accepts contributions from the much-vilified energy sector.

Hillary’s claim ignores some pretty glaring historical evidenceOil and Gas money donated to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns for office exceed $700,000; her 2000 campaign for the U.S. Senate took in $56,000 in donations; energy behemoth ExxonMobil has donated $16.8 million to a Clinton-connected foundation, Vital Voices; and the Clinton charitable foundations have accepted an additional $3 million from ExxonMobil.

That Hillary Clinton as a champion of renewable energy projects is uncontested. However, she has not signed the pledge to reject fossil fuel money and is a notorious flip-flopper on energy issues.  As a member of the Senate, she voted to expand offshore drilling and as head of the State Department Clinton signed the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement which expanded offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.


This, of course, is vintage Hillary Clinton:  Dishonesty is her true medium, a master at work.

Akin to her frequent condemnations of Wall Street despite intimate ties to the financial nerve center, nonsense about corporations creating jobs, the piffle about being dead broke when exiting the White House in 2001, the utter fabrication of being a life-long New York Yankee fan despite her Illinois roots, a make-believe story about landing under intense gunfire in Bosnia as First Lady, and the pusillanimous claptrap of a vast right-wing conspiracy while defending Bill over his affair with a coquettish White House intern, a genuine rebuttal would have rebutted Mr. Patterson’s charge.

To be fair, Hillary Clinton is in a profession where lies are anticipated at some stage, but her denial despite being inextricably linked to energy contributions is testimony to her inauthentic nature.

Hillary reflexively lies, often with third-grade creativity.

When she lacks the ability to tell her own good story convincingly, does not preside over a gullible audience or cannot defend herself against realities of her political career, which is frequent, Hillary fibs.

In need of constant attention living in the shadow of her husband, Hillary has not learned much:  A life surrounded by politics has taught her nothing about how to speak or behave while under scrutiny.

The woman hates retail politics and considers such questions a nuisance and herself politically untouchable.  This latest whopper signals she is having difficulty keeping track of her fabrications.

This was one question she could not simply shrug off with her disingenuous laugh.


[The Nation] [350Action.org] [FactCheck.org] [votesmart.org] [freebeacon.com] [VitalVoices.org] [Photo courtesy aim.org]