Because of many valid comments I have received, I have changed this article to address the same points without being so vitriolic.
On The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, asked if Hillary Clinton if she did "anything special (for her birthday). Hillary said she did as little as possible for her birthday. She said she "had to make some phone calls" she "got to see my granddaughter and my daughter... and then I just sort of hung around. Bill and I just watched some bad TV." I think she is not keen on promoting any special interest or elitist fundraising stories, such as her birthday party fundraiser attended by celebrities and ultra wealthy persons. She may think relationships with the financial elite and special interests are politically harmful. News pundits already showed that her claims that the drug companies were her enemy were dubious due to the financial support she has received from the industry. Her support for the TPP and votes against Glass-Steagall suggest that she may already be beholden to special interests. I believe she is trying to distance herself from moneyed interests. Although, maybe she just forgot about her own (grand) birthday party.
Later, Stephen confronted her on her Wall Street regulation plan. Clinton said "We need continue to reign in the abuses of the financial system and particularly Wall Street, because it did contribute to problems we had in the economy." Contribute seems like a nice word to redirect some of the blame that the financial industries deserve. The area of increased regulation on the financial industries is one that she has not always supported. The new Colbert said, "You put forth a plan for reforming Wall Street and Wall Street embraced it. Is that a good sign?" Hillary cited Paul Krugman to suggest there were teeth in her new proposed financial regulation policy. A policy that would tighten regulations is one that she has multiple millions of dollars of reasons to never try to implement. Why would the banking and investment industries, currently and in the past, be such a robust source of donations for her campaign if they thought her election would be detrimental to the (IMO) unwarranted financial growth they currently enjoy?