Oh oh I see. Well, you might be right that "I'm human and have biases" is political suicide, but if that's true, then our system is far more messed up than I even wanted to consider. However, maybe you actually mean that the specific case of someone who has taken huge donations from Wall Street saying "Yes, I'm influenced by my Wall Street donors" would be political suicide. If that's the point, then, I suppose you're quite right.

Hillary is indeed in a position where she has to claim to be super-human and immune to influence because the ramifications of acknowledging her influences are too problematic. But I want people to be more offended and distrusting over her claims of super-human objectivity than over her (still quite troubling) Wall Street connections. But I'll admit that isn't likely the case. I hope we'll keep working to educate the general public about basic science of human psychology and conflicts-of-interest…

Anyway, apologies for misconstruing your comment.

Cheers for the reply. But yes, I think the system is far more messed up than we think. I am not in the US, but the situation is not always too different here.

In Australia, I believe that the biggest companies can gain favour with unspoken pressure (threats of capital flight, unfavourable advertising, etc) as much as any donations. One politician recently suggested that there are 10 companies which basically dictate terms in this country: four banks, two supermarket giants, three mining giants and a telco.