The tight grip of oligarchy upon the American political system slipped a little last night in New Hampshire.
On the Democratic side, voters cast their ballots for one of the most implausible candidates in modern presidential history—less because his rhetoric was so mesmerizing or his program so inspiring than as a protest against an expected winner perceived as a lavishly compensated servitor of organized wealth.
In her concession speech, Hillary Clinton boasted of her small donors. More than 70 percent had given less than $100, she claimed: “I know that doesn’t fit with the narrative.” As Ken Vogel of Politico immediately tweeted, the claim also distorts the facts. Clinton may have a lot of donors, but the bulk of the value of her donations—85 percent—has come from the biggest givers. And her family’s personal wealth, and its foundation’s assets, can also be seen as built on the largesse of banks, corporations, and foreign governments.
The Clintons’ method has always been to dismiss allegations as “old news” or “distractions” that do not matter to voters. They present themselves as “fighters for you” while they and their senior staff are simultaneously paid by somebody else. The important thing, after all, is to elect a woman at last! And there’s a special place in hell reserved for anyone, especially any fellow woman, who thinks that the character and integrity of the particular woman may matter more than her ambition or last name.