Despite my distrust and ideological disagreements with Hillary Clinton, I supported her in my article titled, “I’m (sort of) with her,” published Sept. 7. However, after the WikiLeaks, I’ve changed my mind.
Many of the leaked emails are standard. Some are revealing. Her campaign was “petrified that [she] is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump.” There are more humorous revelations, as well. Chelsea Clinton was referred to as a “spoiled brat” and Bill Clinton was “losing it” because his wife was losing to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire.
There are also leaks of her speeches, including one where she states the need to have “both a public and a private position” on certain issues. Additionally, Clinton’s campaign manager considered opposing the Keystone pipeline in order to distract from the email scandal; Clinton was “inclined” to support it back in Oct. 2010.
All of this — on top of everything else that has been revealed — should be worrisome to everybody. Why has this received less outrage from the media than Trump’s comments? Probably because the most worrying of all of the revelations exposes the close ties Clinton has with the media.
For example, Donna Brazile, former CNN commentator and current interim DNC chairperson, gave Clinton a question ahead of a CNN town hall. It makes sense that these revelations have not been receiving nearly as much coverage as Trump’s comments.
After these leaks, it’s not an exaggeration to compare Clinton and her team’s corruption to the state’s manipulation of the media to cater to their image and needs.
Even if you do agree with the policies that Clinton is proposing, it’s simply ignorant to say that Trump’s comments are more worrying. I previously stated that I reluctantly supported Clinton to prevent Trump from becoming president. But if having Clinton in office means even more distrust of our very flawed media — which is a possibility in light of these leaks — I cannot vote for her in good conscience.