The New York Times editorial board late Sunday accused Hillary Clinton of dodging a question on whether Wall Street money would influence her policy decisions as president, and for offering the "cynical" response that those donations poured in because she represented New York during 9/11.
"Her effort to tug on Americans' heartstrings instead of explaining her Wall Street ties — on a day that the scars of 9/11 were exposed anew — was at best botched rhetoric," the New York Times wrote on Monday morning. "At worst it was the type of cynical move that Mrs. Clinton would have condemned in Republicans."
During the second Democratic debate Saturday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders said donations from Wall Street, oil and coal, and other big industries would influence candidates. Clinton rejected that line, which seemed to be aimed at her, but defended her donations by making a seemingly nonsensical links between her female donors, the terrorist attacks Manhattan and the economic good produced on Wall Street.
"Predictably, Twitter exploded with demands to know what campaign donations from big banks had to do with New York's recovery from 9/11," the New York Times wrote. "Answer: little to nothing."