The following is a response to the New Yorker’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton.
As I write this on the morning of Election Day, one can only hope the Editors’ convincing endorsement of Hillary Clinton comes to fruition, however, the otherwise coherent piece contained an inaccuracy I feel I must address.
With regards to the WikiLeaks dump of her staff’s e-mail, you say, “Not since the release of the Nixon White House tapes has any political figure had private communications subjected to this degree of public scrutiny. Yet no dark alter ego has emerged,” but this is simply untrue.
The e-mails showed that the Clinton Foundation knowingly accepted funding from the same state bodies funding Islamic State, it showed how her campaign directly colluded with Super PACs and how it worked in step with the Democratic National Committee to undermine Bernie Sanders’ nomination aspirations.
The e-mails also showed the dark underbelly of DNC, which will forever tar its reputation, whoever is the face of its party. Particularly, that a list of recommendations for cabinet positions sent by Michael Froman, then an executive at Citibank, received by John Podesta a month before Barack Obama was elected went on to make up over 90 per cent of President Obama’s selections.
With regards to Clinton, you are right to say that “voters distrust her,” and they have more than enough justification to.
To endorse her without adequately addressing these blatant violations of law – as well as to inaccurately repeat the unsubstantiated claim that the e-mails are “thanks to the tradecraft of what appears to be Putin’s hackers” – is to treat The New Yorker’s readership with the same contempt that the Democratic Party treats its disillusioned base.
Hopefully, by the time this goes to press, the lesser of two evils is elected, but rather than rejoicing, the American public and this publication ought to focus on adequately repairing the broken political system and addressing the flaws highlighted by the e-mails.