Wall Street’s Hillary Problem: She Is Becoming A Thorn In Their Side

[WillTwain]

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000371999


The video from CNBC’s Squawk Box segment is one of the first indications of the fight Hillary is engaging with Wall Street. Squawk Box is a morning show on CNBC that basically runs interference for Wall Street - sort of a smarter version of Fox And Friends.

The show is hosted by Joe (The Feudalist) Kernan, a paid shill for the wolves of Wall Street. He is arrogant, bombastic and huge fan of the free markets and a “meritocracy.” I have been watching this guy for 15 years, we have had our battles in fact.

Never have I seen Kernan look so out of sorts. Hillary has been using the language of Elizabeth Warren and the shills are not sure how to handle it. The odds on favorite to win the White House has put the salesmen of the 1 percent back on their heels. Kernan is calling for her to drop the class warfare rhetoric and calls it all crap anyway. He is all smarmy about using language of unity that will bring us all together, no more finger pointing from Hillary about CEO pay. Hillary blind-sided them.

This is still heating up. Certainly, Wall Street is screaming at her people about her populist rhetoric. Will she cave to their pressure? This could get interesting.

[TDale313]

1. I have to admit,

I've been pleasantly surprised to hear this more populist tone from Hillary. A part of me is pleased even if she's just paying attention to which way the prevailing winds are blowing- cause it means we're having an effect. And her coming out for campaign finance reform? Did not see that coming.

[WillTwain]

2. She may surprise lots of us.

She is really talking tough. She is in a great position to create a hell of a legacy, she knows it. She is gaining respect. Of course, it is about action, but she is getting specific, not nearly enough but a good start.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

5. I'll give you that Hillary is at least attempting to rebrand herself & sound a bit more like Elizabeth. It's a good start, but she has a long way to go...

Let's wait and see if Hillary continues to promote her new-found populism. I sure hope so. Who knows, maybe over time, she can convince people she's the real deal.

[WillTwain]

8. If she keeps this up and it will be a landslide.

She must be extremely specific before I am onboard. But she has been good so far. It is early.

[Thinkingabout]

39. I know many thinks Hillary is following EW but look where she was on issues and the year.

Let's be honest, Hillary was on these issues before 2009 on most issues


On Jobs:

•No salary increase for Congress until minimum wage increased. (Jul 2007)
•Would accept minimum wage as president. (Jul 2007)
•Stand up for unions; organize for fair wages. (Jun 2007)
•Get tough with China and bring jobs back home. (Feb 2007)
•Minimum wage increases haven’t kept up with Congress’ wages. (Dec 2006)
•Passed 2 planks of 7-plank platform, “New Jobs for New York”. (Oct 2006)
•Minimum wage should be tied to congressional salaries. (Jun 2006)
•Pushed for extension of unemployment insurance. (Feb 2004)
•The working poor deserve a living wage. (Oct 1999)
•America can afford to raise the minimum wage. (Sep 1999)
•Recently “we’re in it together” became “you’re on your own”. (Sep 1996)
•Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Nov 2008)
•Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (Mar 2008)
•Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
•Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
•Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
•Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
•Protect overtime pay protections. (Jun 2003)
•Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
•Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)
•Sponsored bill linking minimum wage to Congress' pay raises. (May 2006)
•Extend unemployment compensation during recession. (Jan 2008)
•Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue. (Jan 2009)
•Sponsored bill enforcing against gender pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)


On Corporations:

•Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
•FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
•World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
•Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
•FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
•Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
•Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
•Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
•Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
•1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
•Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
•1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
•1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
•Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
•Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
•Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s. (Jun 1994)
•Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
•Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
•Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
•Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)


On campaign reform, except for the information on Citizens United which is recent events she was standing on these issues before 2009:

•Consider Constitutional Amendment against Citizen's United. (Jul 2014)
•Voter suppression revives old demons of discrimination. (Aug 2013)
•Fight obstacles to voting disguised as election fraud claims. (Aug 2013)
•Get D.C. full voting rights, plus more direct federal funds. (Feb 2008)
•Stand for public financing and getting money out of politics. (Jan 2008)
•HILL-PAC is one of politics biggest money-raisers. (Nov 2007)
•Public financing would fix campaign donor problems. (Sep 2007)
•Presidents should reveal donations to their foundations. (Sep 2007)
•Move to public election financing, not banning lobbyists. (Aug 2007)
•Same-day voter registration; no oppressive ID requirements. (Jul 2007)
•Verified paper ballot for every electronic voting machines. (Nov 2006)
•Right to vote is precious & needs protection. (Sep 2005)
•HILLPAC raised $31M through 2002. (Feb 2004)
•Soft money ban & independent ad ban for Senate campaign. (Feb 2000)

[pnwmom]

90. This is 2015 not 2009. All that matters is what she would do now. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

118. That is not the point of my post, there has been comments made of Hillary talking

Like EW, her record of voting and statements was before EW has saying the same, it just may be both had the same thoughts at the same time but Hillary is on record years before Hillary and EW had their meeting in 2015.

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. its not a "rebrand"

Do you have any idea what she worked on as first lady?

[winstars]

37. She is not surprising me at all. This is who she is, not some RW talking point that some here listen

to.

[WillTwain]

38. You must admit she has a checkered past.

The skepticism is valid.

[winstars]

42. Yeah real checkered. She tried to do health care 20 years ago she was very graceful when her husband

was a real asshole to her marriage and our country, she beat fucking Rudy911 so bad he faked heath reasons NOT to actually run against her, she beat fucking Rick Lazio badly, which was even sweeter after the debate where he got up close and personal, she told some assholes on the BENGAZI! committee to basically fuck off... Yeah, real checkered...

Those are just off the top of my head.

Perfect, most definitely not...

Checkered past, funny I rarely hear that phrase used to describe men.

[liberal_at_heart]

44. bringing out the sexism card I see. This is going to be one nasty, ugly, name calling

primary. Bring it on. It won't change people's votes.

[WillTwain]

48. Why does everything need to devolve to sexism or racism?

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. Because ...

That is what PoC and women actually face in America?

[WillTwain]

86. But we are not all racist or sexist.

We are typically socialists or union activists that are upset about the economic direction we are going. Also, we typically hate racists and mysoginists.Some effort to discern the difference should be utilized.

Bill Clinton and Barack have not been champions of the middle-class. The record speaks for itself.

It does little to bind the groups together by tossing false labels on good people. It tears the party apart. Look at it from our point of view. We see many as adversarial which only drives a wedge between us. We look around and realize nobody is fighting for us, in spite of the fact we are fighting for everyone.

The labeling needs to used sparingly.

[upaloopa]

78. I like her bad ass attitude. My wife is the same way.

We are buying a new house and the sales agents won't talk to us because my wife has an "attitude" they say.
This is one male that admires strong women.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. agree....its no rebrand...

[bvar22]

95. It is Kabuki Theater, designed to fool the Rubes.

Obama did the same thing.

The following will show you how much REAL trouble Hillary is having with Wall Street:



Hillary has really studied the Warren "populist" rhetoric,
and her "team" has observed how well it plays with the voters,
so, naturally, we have a Brand New Hillary who sounds like Warren.

But you know what, the words sound empty coming from Hillary's mouth.
We ALL already know WHO Hillary is,
and WHOM she is working for.

No Sale, and an increase in contempt for copy-catting Warren.

[WillTwain]

96. Bvar22 strikes again

[Marr]

109. Exactly. It actually reminds me of something from that Bob Altemeyer book on

the authoritarian follower personality type.

One of their distinguishing characteristics is that they tend to believe speakers are sincere if they agree with the sentiment that speaker is expressing. Even if they're told beforehand that a speaker has been told to argue a specific side of an issue, even if they've been told the speaker has been told to play devil's advocate-- they still believe the speaker is sincere and actually believes in the argument they're making.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the arguments around here always seem to have such similar shapes, with the same people making the same arguments. One side is always offering words and quotes and soundbites, as if just saying a thing is equal to doing a thing. Hillary can't be a Wall Street shill! She said she was for tough regulations!

[Jackpine Radical]

111. It means, at the very least, that winds from that direction are being perceived.

[cascadiance]

3. But they must like that she hasn't spoken out against the TPP this week!

Which if she was a real populist and not just trying to grab populist votes, she should have been doing when her announcement coincided with Fast Track bill getting through committee at the same time.

So, maybe this is just an act on their part that they feel miffed to add some credence to her trying to be "populist" to avoid questions like this of that really being true or not.

[WillTwain]

4. I think they are genuinely pissed about the rhetoric.

But you may be right about the showmanship. They really jumped onPresident Obama when he made a few cracks about "Fat Cats." They are incredibly thin skinned and image aware.

On the TPP, I think they will try to rush it through, so Hillary can avoid commenting on it until after it passes.

[liberal_at_heart]

6. Exactly. Populist rhetoric during a campaign does not impress me.

Do all the speeches she gave to the banks mean nothing now or is what she saying now mean nothing? I just don't trust this sudden change of heart. How many campaign promises have been promised and never delivered on after an election? Would she honestly reinstate Glass-Steagall for example?

[TDale313]

54. The really sad thing?

There's a part of me that's grateful even for the pandering. Now wait, hear me out... For decades we on the left have been told that we weren't even worth pandering to. We were a captive audience, they didn't need to work for our votes. If economic populism is where the energy is, even if it's political expediency, I can't help but feel there's some good to that, as opposed to being treated as totally irrelevant

[WillTwain]

62. " There's a part of me that's grateful even for the pandering."

That says it all. Just to be flirted with when you are the ugly loner sitting in the corner feels good.

[liberal_at_heart]

71. But how many Presidential candidates talk about helping the middle class? All of them.

I remember all the middle class signs being waved at the Obama speeches. And I'm sure Hillary's crowds will be waiving them too. And she will talk about helping the middle class. They all talk about helping the middle class. They just never do anything about it. And when do any of them talk about the working poor or the homeless? None of them do that. That's why I love the fact that we now have real progressives giving a voice to those who have been voiceless for so long. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley. Now these are progressives I can get excited about.

[WillTwain]

74. When you look back at the powerful pro-labor speeches from our guys in 2008,

It definitely brings you back to earth.

Fire and brimstone like a good southern preacher.

[TDale313]

88. You have a point...

But I will say, this feels slightly different to me. They all pay some lip service to that idea, sure, especially in the right venues. But I think it's a direct response to the real progressives you're talking about that this was the issue Hillary said was her main focus in running in her video announcing her run for the Presidency. And I think that says something about where they think the energy in the party and the country is. And that gives me some hope- not so much for her- I think in large part the Clintons are all about the Clintons- but that there is something happening out there that even they have noticed and feel the need to latch onto. And that's a positive IMO. In all honesty, I don't recall economic issues being the major focus of the 2008 campaign until a) John Edwards pushed the issue and b) the banking crisis made it *the* issue.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. So you're say that there is nothing she can do to convince you? n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. Yes ... It's a conspiracy! n/t

[MineralMan]

7. I think many people are going to be surprised at

the direction Hillary Clinton's campaign takes. Some will simply refuse to believe anything she says, but she wants to win the presidential race, and knows that she's going to have to stir up interest and voter participation. Frankly, she has nothing to lose by taking this approach, and may well actually have serious reforms in mind for her term in office. I don't know that for sure, of course, but she seems to be approaching things from a different angle than in the past.

Her last campaign started eight years ago. She lost. Barack Obama won and won by getting people out to support him. Twice. Smart politicians pay attention to how other politicians win. I expect her 2016 campaign to look and feel a lot different than the one in 2016, and I expect her to begin soon to talk about what she has in mind.

Will soi-disant progressive Democrats hear what she says? Will they believe what she says? I don't know the answer to that either. She's starting from a strong position in the current polls, though, so it may not actually matter what a small percentage of Democrats think. If she can capture the attention of everyone else, she may just win this one walking away. Time will tell. I think we should listen carefully to Hillary Clinton. She may well say some things that will surprise people. Times have changed since the 2008 campaigns, and I'm betting Clinton is on top of those changes.

I expect her to win the nomination, since I don't see any challengers with enough recognition or broad support to beat her in the primaries. So, I'm guessing I'll be marking the space next to her name in November of 2016 on my optical scanner paper ballot in Minnesota. I always vote for the Democratic candidate, so if that's her, she'll certainly have my vote and support.

[cascadiance]

10. A lot of voters were motivated by a "Hope and Change" promises campaign by Obama...

... which is why he won in 2008. The vast majority of people out there want to see the system changed and what its doing to serve the people it has ignored for too many decades now. They were hopeful that Obama could be that person to do things. But those nebulous promises of "hope and change" weren't really substantive on many issues that had meaning for the public. Many are disappointed, and are going to be especially distrustful of empty promises this coming campaign given that experience.

Which is why I think Clinton needs to back up her "populist" marketing campaign with some substance somehow, like the perfect missed opportunity might have that I speak on another post in this thread. If she really wants to show herself as someone now working for the people, and she herself really wants to do this for the people she would have eagerly seized upon the opportunity to express her shared dislike/concerns over the TPP for what it would do to most Americans, and wouldn't be trying to avoid talking about it while she's trying to present herself as a "populist" with marketing speak during these same days.

[WillTwain]

18. As you say, the TPP is key.

If she comes out against the TPP before it is passed, that would be nice.

[MineralMan]

20. Hmm...So, you think there hasn't been change during

Obama's presidency. Really? How odd.

There would have been more of it, of course, if the Republicans hadn't gotten control of the House and then the Senate in mid-term elections, I suppose. We really need to help our Democratic Presidents by helping them get Congresses that will send progressive bills to them to be signed. We don't seem to do that very well.

Still, millions of people now have health insurance who couldn't get it before. LGBT folks are about to see marriage equality become universal. Economic programs have led to a recovery from the GWB Recession. We're not fighting the same wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with all of those combat troops in place. I could go on, of course, but we all know about the changes that have occurred since Obama was elected. They're sort of embarrassing for some, I suppose, so I won't belabor the point.

Perhaps you're misreading the mood of the public. I'm guessing that's the case. Let's hear what Hillary Clinton has to say, shall we? You won't believe her, but maybe others will. They vote, too, you know.

[cascadiance]

32. He made it sound like he would undo "free trade" treaties during his campaign...

... but instead he's now the primary entity PUSHING arguably what could be the worst one we have had yet now.

With health insurance he didn't even try to do either single payer or even a public option as an option. The insurance companies are still a big cost factor in this health insurance which arguably could have been made less costly and better with stronger negotiation being done, which he didn't seem too motivated to do.

He's talked about negotiating cutbacks to social security, which is really a no no in my book for someone who made it sound like he was wanting change in the opposite direction of that.

People wanted banksters prosecuted for the crimes they committed in the financial crisis. He's WORSE than Reagan with his justice department not doing ANYTHING to bring these people to justice, when Reagan at least put a lot of people in jail for the Savings and Loan Crisis.

He's been doing drone strikes that have killed a lot of innocent people including American citizens who haven't due process given to them before them being "sentenced" to die by such means.

He's been just as bad if not worse with domestic spying and going after whistleblowers that are trying to keep our intelligence agencies actions proper and constitutional.

Yes, he's been good on some issues that the financial elites don't care about as much, but when they are involved, he seems to be bought like so many other Democrats are these days. People want a leader that isn't bought. That person might be kept from running one way or another this time around, but THAT is what people want. And if that person isn't offered, they will get more disillusioned with the Democratic Party especially, since they should take the lead in working for the people as a party.

[MineralMan]

34. So, what practical, attainable suggestion do you have for 2016?

I'll wait right here.

[winstars]

43. Don't hold your breath... this is getting so boring here. Maybe Robert Redford in "The Candidate"

is available....

[One_Life_To_Give]

58. Reinstate Glass Steagall

Breakup any too big to fail institutions.
Stop the revolving door between Regulators and those they Regulate.
Duplicate China's regulations concerning domestic manufacture vs foreign.
Cut H1B's
Impose the required disclosure of CEO Pay as multiple of Avg employee wage.

Those would be a couple starters.

[MineralMan]

61. How are any of the 2016 candidates going to do that

before the election? You're not really addressing my question, which is about the upcoming election.

[libdem4life]

79. I may be mistaken, but don't all of those wishes have to pass through a venomous Congress?

[libdem4life]

81. I was born and raised a Right Wing Republican. I Chose to become a Liberal Democrat in college.

One person must somehow reflect the accumulated views of millions of people. That's why we force politicians to "lie" "talk out of all sides of their mouths" etc. We've just got two, dysfunctional parties, two candidates then The Winner.

Yes, we should voice opinions and have some dust-ups. I don't have a litmus test, however. At this point in political history, you need a money printing press (donors, corporates, fat cats, whatever) to run. And if enough people stay home and pout, we'll still have a Republican House...how well has that been going for us?

I also have faith in the Independents...they are the ones that tip the scales...they think, listen, watch and then make up their minds. And Hillary is doing things differently. That should catch some of their votes.

However, I am a Democrat and shall vote for our Candidate. Because the worst Democrat is better by far than the best Republican.

[MineralMan]

91. Exactly, and no presidential candidate can promise any such thing.

In fact, if we don't turn out in huge numbers in 2016, the Republicans may have control of all three branches of government. Imagine what might happen then. People are forgetting all of that in their hurry to condemn the current leading Democratic candidate.

I'm very frustrated with all of this. Any of the potential Democrats would be just fine with me. I'll vote for whoever the candidate turns out to be. But we really, really need not to burn bridges. That's just stupid.

[WillTwain]

64. Hillary needs to be questioned on this stuff.

She needs to hold a long press conference.

[MineralMan]

92. She'll hold many of them. She'll also make many speeches.

Right now, time's not pressing for that stuff. She's the sole primary candidate, really, even though a couple of more have said they're running. Do you suppose she won't talk about all this stuff during 18 months of campaigning? Really?

[WillTwain]

94. MM, I never said that.

All I am saying is until she clears this stuff up, she will be hammered from the left.

The sooner the better for her and everybody else.

[MineralMan]

99. You know, I'm not sure she's thinking much about the left

right this minute. Truly. I suspect that the schedule of what will be said and when is already detailed and just about complete. People chattering on the Internet in forums like this one aren't really in play at this early stage, I'm sure.

Clinton and her team already know what the left thinks or wants people to think. Right now, she's targeting a different audience with these early forays into a populist campaign. The left can wait a bit for in-depth policy wonking or even wanking. That's my guess, based in 50+ years of being involved in campaigns, albeit at a lower level of government.

[WillTwain]

104. She is talking to the left, though.

She could have played it much safer. You are right. This is very orchestrated. We need a real populist to get in the game to press her.

[MineralMan]

108. OK. When one shows up, we can talk about that, too.

I think Bernie's going to bail out of this race before he gets into it. He's not going to spend his energy on anything that's hopeless for him, just to raise issues. He's old, like me. Campaigning takes huge amounts of energy. You have to at least believe you might win to expend that energy.

O'Malley is a long shot, simply due to poor name recognition, except in the NE. Lincoln Chaffee was a long-time Republican, and is going to have to do some fancy talking about that. Who else? Biden? If he ran, it would be to support Clinton during the primary debates.

So, which populist did you have in mind? I can't think of one, frankly, who has enough heft to be much of a challenge at this point.

[cascadiance]

121. Well, for starters, promise and deliver on vetoes of any Fast Track/TPP bills before him...

... instead of PROMOTING him that a populist representative of average American's interests would not and SHOUlD not do. Pretty simple actually, which doesn't have him begging for congress for anything if he wants to work for us. Other so-called "progressive" candidates that don't promise the same thing shouldn't be trusted either.

[WillTwain]

123. Hillary just said she is watching it closely.

[WillTwain]

75. The financial elites rule.

They all are good on social issues, but when real $$$ is involved the progress stops.

[WillTwain]

12. I always vote Democrat, also.

She can potentially transform America. This country is almost boiling beneath the surface.

If she talks big, then does not follow through, watch out.

[MineralMan]

29. We won't know what she will actually do

until after the election. That's always the case. So, I'll listen to what she says to see if what she's proposing makes sense. Few Presidents have been able to accomplish everything they set out to do. It's funny how that works, but our President's are limited in their powers, by constitutional design. That's why Congress is so important. In every election. Every two years. Why turnout is so low in mid-term elections has always puzzled me. I guess it's because people don't really understand how our government really works. That's too damned bad, if you ask me.

[zipplewrath]

26. Talk will be cheap

It's going to be hard for her to get away from her own and her husbands history here. She may try to pivot to a Warren approach, but it won't sell with those who actually want to hear it. Her advisors have long Clinton credentials and I suspect that when the general election comes along you'll see a big triangulating pivot towards the center and away from the Warren direction, especially since almost any of the GOP nominees will leave her a lot of room there. She'll almost assuredly try to move towards her own history since that will be a safe center for her.

[MineralMan]

31. You will see things as you see them.

Government is complicated. Stuff doesn't always go as we would hope. Sometimes, we screw our own selves by not helping our Presidents with a Congress that's aligned with the goals. It's a failing we seem to keep repeating. More's the pity.

[zipplewrath]

97. Oh wise one

I guess the idea that people will say stuff just to get elected never happens.

[MineralMan]

102. Don't be silly. Of course they will and it does happen.

The idea that any candidate expects to actually fulfill every promise made during campaigns is what's silly. Every idea is just a filibuster away from going bust, as we've seen for the last 6+ years. Presidential candidates will readily say what they want to do and hope to do, but they have no illusions about actually being able to do all of those things. That we ever expect them to do everything is what's silly.

I'm not wise. I've just been around a long time, and have seen politics in action for a long time.

[zipplewrath]

110. Probably not as long as I

Presidential candidates, and all candidates, regularly say things they have no intention of actually doing, or even supporting. They say and do things expecting to be misunderstood, and then parsing later. Saying "the era of big government is over" AFTER you're elected can't be blamed on filibusters. It something specifically avoided during a campaign. Saying you'll renegotiate NAFTA when you have no intention of renegotiating NAFTA and in fact plan on negotiating ANOTHER NAFTA isn't because of the GOP or changing circumstances. I love it when they claim to not have campaigned on a Public Option, much less forget that they stood in front of the world and said it was necessary to keep the insurance companies "honest".

Yes, I'll be suspicious of anything candidates say, especially ones with a history of triangulation.

[840high]

107. lol - never

[WillTwain]

33. Ratner says she recognizes times have changed.

Any chance?

[zipplewrath]

98. But tactics stay the same

I'm dubious that the leopards stripes have changed that much. Especially in a crisis, they'll tend to go back to what they know.

[WillTwain]

100. She has tossed a few jabs.

Let's see if they carry her for fifteen rounds then drop the hammer after the election.

[libdem4life]

105. Oh, that darned Pillow Talk. Honey, how should I vote? LOLOLOL

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. +1 ...

And, further, if a significant portion of Democratic candidates for the House and the Senate follow HRC's (EW's, depending on one's point of view) messaging lead, I can see her actually being able to carry out her campaign promises, as Democrats would ride her coat tails into office (i.e., picking up seats in the House and re-taking the Senate).

And the beauty of it all ... with strong congressional pick-ups, it won't matter whether she, actually, means everything she's saying ... we'll have the numbers in Congress to "make" her act on the populism that got them into office. (I can't see HRC vetoing Democratic legislation).

BTW, "soi-disant" ... I had to look that one up!

[MineralMan]

93. I just like the way that sounds - soi-disant.

French is one of my languages, but that expression is used in English, too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. ...

[Marr]

113. I assume she's going to have a populist message.

So did Obama. That's standard center-right Dem operating procedure during a campaign.

They don't govern that way, of course-- and they take pains to explain after the election how very center-right the country is. But they actually win their votes by talking like liberals.

[MineralMan]

115. Whatever you say. Presidents have limited powers,

especially in a Congress not controlled by their own party. Would you prefer a Republican President? Do you have some other, doable, alternative? Do you want to know what will help? Electing a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in both houses of Congress will help. That's what I'll be working on in 2016. How about you?

[WillTwain]

124. Depends on the president.

[Marr]

128. Interesting. So politicians always speak sincerely on the campaign trail, huh?

I wasn't aware of that.

Say, are in the market for a bridge? I have several lovely properties on offer.

[hughee99]

9. Wall Street is screaming?

I don't believe anyone on Wall Street is taking her seriously on this stuff.

[WillTwain]

13. The more she talks, the harder it is to take back.

Wall Street wants this stopped. Leaders have a profound influence on people. If she keeps this up and wins, they will be playing defense. It starts with rhetoric.

Who knows exactly what her intentions are, but this looks better than I thought it would look like at this point.

[hughee99]

17. Not really, nothing is hard to take back. I know exactly what her intentions are

with this rhetoric. She wants to keep primary challengers like Warren and Sanders out of the race. How does she do that? She says the sort of things that Warren/Sanders supporters want to hear. Once she's sure she won't get a serious challenge from the left, the populism will disappear and she just wont talk about it any more.

[liberal_at_heart]

19. Rhetoric is part of the political game. Obama has talked tough to the banks

a few times and yet has backed down whenever the stock market went down. We need someone who will not only talk the talk but will take action. Hillary certainly knows how to talk. So did Obama. I fell for Obama's promises and was disappointed. I am not falling for Hillary's promises.

[WillTwain]

24. Will you vote for her if she gets the nomination?

[liberal_at_heart]

28. no I won't.

[cali]

11. I keep reading the opposite

but this article makes me hopeful.

Wall Street’s new huge gamble: Why they’re betting Hillary Clinton will stay in their pocket

Clinton's praising Elizabeth Warren, but the 1 percent isn't worried. They may be in for a nasty surprise

full article:

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/16/wall_streets_new_huge_gamble_why_theyre_betting_hillary_clinton_will_stay_in_their_pocket/

[99Forever]

14. "Populist" rhetoric during a campaign is easy.

Doing it once in office is a whole different world.

I've seen this movie before.

[WillTwain]

16. i am not sure a front runner has come out his strong in a long time.

Again, she must get very specific about policy. Otherwise, it is campaign rhetoric.

[ND-Dem]

27. +1,000,000

[WillTwain]

36. What can she say to convince you she is real?

I am waiting for the unions to make a choice.

[99Forever]

70. How about she twist some Democrats arms and stop the TPP?

Anyone want to make a wager as to whether she is willing to step up and fight for us on that?

I have two short phrases perhaps you have forgotten :

"Put on my comfortable shoes.... "

&

" Public option. "


I haven't forgotten.

[WillTwain]

80. I hear ya.

I am just one notch more optimistic - a 1 on a scale of 1-10.

[0rganism]

65. almost seems like the winner gets taken to a back room at the WH after the election

...where the Real Power Brokers sit the new president down and explain to him/her just how things really are., with the JFK assassination films showing on 3 walls.

[WillTwain]

69. Definitely

I have heard stories about President Obama basically being told to get in line.

[sendero]

15. It's a lot of yap..

... just like the yap Obama was so fond of spewing in 2008, and forgot completely in 2009.


Wall Street is not concerned, they know what they've paid for and will get.

[WillTwain]

21. She needs to be bold.

At this point it is still talk.

[liberal_at_heart]

22. exactly.

[foo_bar]

23. that didn't take long.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776417#post2

[WillTwain]

25. You are killing me.

I am losing hope again.

[ND-Dem]

30. people always lose hope when hope is all there is. there needs to be some actual payoff

to sustain hope.

[WillTwain]

35. That is why people do not vote.

I cannot remember this level of apathy in my life. So little has been delivered for so long many have lost all hope.

[ND-Dem]

46. agreed. that's why the top 20% vote most; they actually get something out of the deal.

[WillTwain]

51. Yep, They all vote.

Ironically, democracy should be embraced by the bottom rung. Man, we are a mess.

[Maedhros]

55. Payoff? Sorry, no. Hope is all we get.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/the_hope_diet_would_the_tea_party_fall_for_this/

This is the opposite of accountability. It means, just keep waiting, and just keep voting. If you think good thoughts long enough, maybe someday you’ll get that million bucks, or that single-payer healthcare system.

And that’s probably why this stuff springs so goddamned eternal. After 30 years of these pseudo Democrats—Democrats who fundraise like Republicans, Democrats who govern like Republicans, Democrats who basically become Republicans (for example, Zell Miller, the creator of the “HOPE Scholarship”)—it’s easy enough to understand why elected officials love the concept. “Hope” means, forget about how you got taken last time. Think positively. Maybe this next Democrat is the one who will finally act the way you think Democrats ought to act. And when he doesn’t, “hope” means you need to stick with him anyway, because . . . well, because he’s the one who carries hope in his back pocket and all.

At any rate, “hope” is a virtue they mainly recommend for you, the Democratic voter; with their funders and bundlers, the relationship is a little more contractual. For them our Democratic leaders undertake to perform certain actions; it is only for the rank and file that they recommend a diet of wishes. If we complain about this state of affairs, they will no doubt tell us that results in this material world aren’t everything. There’s something philosophical and ennobling about hoping for things. “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him,” says Job of the Almighty.

When confronting our earthly leaders, however, the situation ought to be a little different. We shouldn’t have to hope. We should expect politicians to deliver.

[ND-Dem]

59. "We should expect politicians to deliver." = Truth. Instead we're expected to get all excited

by populist "talk".

And we are expected to eat talk in lieu of actual food.

[WillTwain]

63. It is hopeless.

I am hoping Bernie can tip over the apple cart. There I go hoping again.

This shit has to change.

[Maedhros]

66. The first thing we need to do is to stop listening to the Eeyores of the Party

who insist that good candidates can't get elected.

[WillTwain]

73. Bernie was just on Thom Hartmann,

He does not sound overly excited about getting in. He still may, but he is really skeptical about raising a few $billion.

That is the problem, even guys like Bernie have difficulty seeing a way to topple the kings.

[liberal_at_heart]

112. With social media, it is possible. If we all send him a few bucks he could do it.

Hell that's how Obama did it the first time round before he got corporate backers.

[WillTwain]

122. Bernie must run,I will send him mire than I sent Obama and that was a lot.

[leveymg]

40. Pure perception management. HRC is a salesperson for the 1%

Hillary, the "radical thorn of Wall Street" - what a heaping pile of campaign repositioning (that is still heating up).

[WillTwain]

67. She says, "She wants to be our champion."

[Kelvin Mace]

41. Street theatre

follow the money:

EMILY's List $541,239
DLA Piper $496,700
JPMorgan Chase & Co $446,479
Goldman Sachs $407,850
Citigroup Inc $401,217
Morgan Stanley $374,830
University of California $273,756
Lehman Brothers $253,753
Skadden, Arps et al $220,310
National Amusements Inc $219,304
Merrill Lynch $194,109
21st Century Fox $193,500
Greenberg Traurig LLP $192,800
PricewaterhouseCoopers $191,900
Microsoft Corp $184,119
Time Warner $177,956
Kirkland & Ellis $177,741
Ernst & Young $161,150
General Electric $157,621
Cablevision Systems $154,063

[ND-Dem]

47. let's note also that DLA Piper is an international law firm.

DLA Piper is an Anglo-American multinational law firm located in more than 30 countries throughout the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.[1] In 2014 it had total revenues of US$2.48 billion and average profit per equity partner of US$1.490 million.[2] It is one of the largest law firms in the world measured by revenue.[4][third-party source needed]

DLA Piper was formed in January 2005 by a merger between three law firms: San Diego-based Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP, Chicago-based Piper Rudnick LLP and United Kingdom-based DLA LLP. It is composed of two partnerships, the United Kingdom-based DLA Piper International LLP and the United States-based DLA Piper US LLP.

The two partnerships share a single global board and are structured as a Swiss Verein.

In February 2010 DLA Piper formed an alliance with the Turkish law firm Yüksel Karkın Küçük.[34] In March 2010 DLA Piper formed an alliance with the Brazil-based law firm Campos Mello Advogados.[35]

In January 2011 DLA Piper and DLA Phillips Fox announced their intention to merge.[36][37] The merger was approved by partners of both firms in February and was completed on 1 May, when DLA Phillips Fox become part of DLA Piper International LLP...[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLA_Piper

[WillTwain]

57. Ugly, to say the least.

[DCBob]

45. I like it.

I hope its real.

[djean111]

49. Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street backers: We get it

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-wall-street-backers-we-get-it-117017.html#ixzz3XRw1fFXt

Populist rhetoric, many say, is good politics — but doesn’t portend an assault on the rich.

But back in Manhattan, the hedge fund managers who’ve long been part of her political and fundraising networks aren’t sweating the putdown and aren’t worrying about their take-home pay just yet.

It’s “just politics,” said one major Democratic donor on Wall Street, explaining that some of Clinton’s Wall Street supporters doubt she would push hard for closing the carried-interest loophole as president, a policy she promoted when she last ran in 2008.

......

In the words of Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s White House who now advises Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist hedge-fund manager and donor: “The fact is that any Democrat running for president would talk about this. It’s as surprising as the sun rising in the east.”

.....

“The fact is,” the Democrat added, “if she didn’t say this stuff now she would be open to massive attacks from the left, and would have to say even more dramatic stuff later.”

She is just "saying stuff". Nothing for anyone, really, to get all excited about. Or change their mind.

[WillTwain]

52. At this point, you are right.

If it continues and ramps up dramatically, it may be real.

Still waiting for a TPP statement.

[Orsino]

50. But will they be able buy her silence?

I think they know how the campaign game is played. If we somehow get a weak-tea reform bill passed, and she signs it, will it be watered down further so as to render it meaningless.

It seems mighty early for Wall Street to be turning on her. We may be fooled, but I doubt they are.

[WillTwain]

53. If she clams up, it is a done deal.

If she digs in and gets tougher, the plot thickens.

[frylock]

56. oh yeah, I'm sure that Wall St is shitting their collective pants..

please.

[WillTwain]

60. Funny and direct.

We will have to follow the rhetoric.

She is the likely president in 2016 and I am probably naively holding out hope.

[frylock]

68. you'll have to forgive my cynicism, but I've seen this movie before..

but yes, all we have is hope.

[WillTwain]

72. I am both a big cynic and hopeful.

Roller Coaster ride.

The problem is, she is probably going to win. She is our only chance to fix things.

"Do you believe in miracles" - 1980 U. S. hockey team beat Russia.

[bunnies]

82. Her Wall St donors arent worried.

They've said as much.

[WillTwain]

87. Jack Walsh, former General Electric CEO and all around prick, loves her.

She has a lot of work ahead of her to convince people. But she has already said more than I expected.

[polichick]

101. Smoke and mirrors.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

119. Well, unless Hillary puts on a convincing act, she might have some unwelcome company on the campaign trail.

[840high]

106. After the election they will

kiss and make-up.

[AtomicKitten]

114. Do you have a link to the Onion for this?

pfft

[MineralMan]

116. +1

[tabasco]

117. Hillary's talking all this "for the people" talk

but if she was elected, she would kiss Wall Street and republican ass.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

120. That's my biggest fear, which is why we need someone we can trust to be a true "champion" for the people, who's been fighting in the trenches.

[WillTwain]

125. Hillary just put out a statement on TPP. She is watching it closely.

[liberal_at_heart]

126. The very least thing she could is oppose fast tracking so it could be debated out in the open and

let the people of America know what's in it and let them have a say. That is the very least she could do. The best thing she could do is oppose the whole damn thing, but I'm not holding my breath.

[WillTwain]

127. They are ramming it through

Obama looked confident, today.