I think Hillary can say with a very straight face that nobody can point to anything she has ever done that can be proven to be reciprocity.
And Al Capone said with a very straight face that nobody could ever prove in court that he was responsible for the Valentine's Day Massacre.
The influence of money is so insidious in politics that even those under its influence are largely unaware it, subconsciously conflating the interests of their constituents with those of their donor/clients.
See, I don't think it's all that "insidious" at all. I think the public face she shows on a campaign trail and in television interviews is mainly a product of PR specialists, campaign managers, communications experts and a VERY compliant news media that is willing to repeat whatever narrative her campaign is pushing at the moment. I think that her PUBLIC face bears little if any resemblance to the person who deals with other politicians, bankers, foreign policy experts, thinktanks and foreign officials. I think Hilary and Bill have BOTH been in the limelight long enough that they have perfected "image control" to a more extensive degree than almost any other politician in America.
i think much the same thing about Obama, but in the sense that alot of his more conciliatory language in public was meant to hide some of the tougher negotiating done behind the scenes and avoid alienating those few Republicans who joined the opposition in public but happily caved in private.
My unease about Hilary Clinton stems from the fact that her public face barely hides what appears to be a very conservative and authoritarian view of the American government; add to that her being on (it would appear) friendly terms with very powerful financial institutions and a less-than-subtle appearance of impropriety during the campaign process, she gives off an almost Nixon-esque vibe of feeling both above the law AND morally superior to her opposition.
