2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIt Will Be Extremely Difficult For Hillary to Say No To Wall Street
It Will Be Extremely Difficult For Hillary to Say No To Wall StreetCan Clinton simply disregard the industry's favors to her wealth, political campaigns and foundation?
By Zaid Milani * AlterNet * November 16, 2015
The highlight of Saturday night's Democratic debate was when former Secretary Clinton invoked the September 11 attacks to try to defend her courting of Wall Street donors. The awkward defense of her political ties even spawned a rare New York Times editorial criticizing Clinton.
The fact is, there is no way that Hillary Clinton can pretend she doesn't have a cozy relationship with an industry that personally enriched her family, formed the basis of political support for her career and is doing everything it can to make her president.
Dollar Dollar Bill
After leaving the White House, Bill and Hillary Clinton had a steady source of income; pensions from both the federal government and Arkansas. They also both wrote books that generated millions of dollars of income. That's why, over the next 10 years, Bill Clinton raked in over $125 million in speaking fees, almost all of them from for-profit mega-corporations and trade associations. Shortly after presiding over a historic and catastrophic deregulation of Wall Street, Mr. Clinton's first paid arrangement was a $125,000 speech at Morgan Stanley. His next speech was at Credit Suisse First Boston, for the same asking price. The same year Wall Street banks started to pour funds into the the joint Clinton bank account, Hillary went on to vote for a bankruptcy bill that made it much harder for people to qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy; the bill was backed primarily by banks and credit card issuers.
An interesting figure during this period was Elizabeth Warren. Before she was Senator Warren, she was a consumer advocate and professor at Harvard University. She personally briefed First Lady Hillary Clinton on the perils of rolling back bankruptcy protections. Despite going on to support the bill, Hillary was sympathetic to Warren's arguments, telling her, “Professor Warren, we've got to stop that awful bill.”
Clinton's vote for the “awful bill" in 2001 ultimately did not give it the support it needed to pass, but it did pass four years later. At that time, Clinton didn't vote at all, an easy way to avoid responsibility as she prepped for a presidential race a few years later. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Warren explained the change in attitude from Senator Clinton: “It's a well-financed industry....She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.”
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/hillary-clinton-simply-cant-stand-wall-st-it-built-her-political-career-and-brought
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randys1
(16,286 posts)Is someone who was gonna vote for HIllary now going to vote Bernie because they hear this?
Or, more likely, are there very few who are voting Democratic Party, who are now dead set to vote for Hillary that are going to change their minds?
I say very few, therefore these attack Hillary stories, threads, OP's, which can be found on all kinds of boards or media sources, have really only one purpose, to reduce voter turnout and turn anybody and everybody off to Hillary.
The result of that if she wins the nomination, is frightening.
Obviously I cant allege anyone on DU is doing this solely for the purposes I have outlined, but even if there isnt ONE person doing it here knowingly, this is still the result.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)You've decided to push an establishment candidate with a record that sucks in a year that people are in an anti establishment mood. You've been warned repeatedly and refuse to listen. The results are on you
randys1
(16,286 posts)i am voting for.
Or do you mean threat to have me thrown off this board?
Please elaborate.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)You and other Hillary pushers are blindly setting us up for an electoral disaster.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Keep saying that and it may come to pass.
brooklynite
(94,970 posts)Or is this another instance of "the voters are too STUPID to know enough to vote for my candidate"?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)In the meantime the right wing will crawl out of their graves to vote against her and her favorables are underwater with the general public and she has no room to move because everyone already knows her. She turns off a large percentage of what should naturally be Democratic Party constituents and will have negative coattails. Stellar strategy you've got there!
brooklynite
(94,970 posts)If they're registered voters, they're as likely as anyone else to be picked up in a RV poll. If not, they're not able to vote so it's meaningless.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)You're addicted to your polls and that's the only language you speak. You ignore everything else about her INCLUDING polls about her favorables in general and think we're going to be able to run another disastrous anti-Republican platform despite how badly we've fared using that strategy in the past. Hillary is no Obama...she's not a blank slate and she cannot inspire. She is going to wipe us off the map.
brooklynite
(94,970 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Keep whistling. You have no clue how much people don't like her outside of your New York enclave. You've seen her general favorables and you just refuse to acknowledge them or any of her other flaws. We will all pay the price for it.
brooklynite
(94,970 posts)...and I get a lot of data from the staffers I know. Had a briefing from Robby Mook yesterday (posted elsewhere) and it sounds like they have their act together for both the Primary and General.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Can't wait for another no-show like 2014. Especially running John Kerry Part 2.
George II
(67,782 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Is hurting all of us.
George II
(67,782 posts)...in the primary, how is he going to get republican votes in the General Election?
Rilgin
(787 posts)Obama got less than 50% of the democratic vote when he ran in the primaries. How could he win the GE?
Of course you know that your argument is false and is not recognizing the difference between a primary when members of a party run against members of the same party and a GE when they run against the nominees of other parties.
Hillary is the front runner now by the polls in the primary process. In the GE her support in the GE will pick up just like Bernie's or Martins. You know this. Whoever wins this primary will get Democrats to vote for them in the General Election. That is not any evidence of who will win the GE.
This is the primary, not the GE. You know that already and are making an inauthentic argument.
George II
(67,782 posts)..."know" stuff that isn't true.
I'm not making any type of "argument", inauthentic, false, or whatever. I'm expressing my opinion, but I have more facts and reality on which I based my opinion than you have.
See you late on March 1 or on March 2 when Sanders graciously concedes the nomination to Hillary Clinton.
Rilgin
(787 posts)It is your argument is not correct logically.
A = Hillary
B= Bernie
C= Random Republican
P = Primary
GE = General Election
Your argument is A > B in the P, therefore it proves or supports the proposition that
C > B in the GE
It can be the case that even though A> B in the P, B > C in the GE or even C > A in the GE.
Your specific argument is not a valid argument. As you have correctly stated, you have an opinion. You just argue using a false argument to support that opinion. Primary polls are valid to determine who is currently the front runner in the Primaries. They do not say anything close to what you want them to say about the GE as witness conflicting data from actual GE polls which show Bernie currently beating Republicans although currently losing to Clinton in the primaries.
I did not in any way contest the fact that you have an opinion or that you support HRC. You post a lot. It is the argument that is inauthentic. From other posts, I do believe you know that already but keep posting the same thing.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Especially this stupid line: therefore these attack Hillary stories, threads, OP's, which can be found on all kinds of boards or media sources, have really only one purpose, to reduce voter turnout and turn anybody and everybody off to Hillary.
Why it's a big conspiracy! By Sanders supporters! To Steal her support and make nobody like her!
randys1
(16,286 posts)honesty, I have to believe that as relentless as many of them have been in attacking Hillary, they dont really want to see a republican president appointing a SC justice who will take away rights from Women, Gays and Black people.
But I do think most DU Bernie supporters and his supporters in the general public are middle aged white left-leaning quasi-libertarians (his crowds back up this assessment), mostly men but some Women, who are looking almost exclusively at pocketbook issues, and as a result of that may miss the reality that if Bernie isnt the nominee, their nonstop attacks of Hillary could have negative consequences.
Oh, and as to who is purposely going out of their way to harm Hillary that would be the GOP, Karl Rove, ALEC, Koch Bros, and the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS behind them.
Gee, I wonder why.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)
Martin Eden
(12,885 posts)... that would be people who are willing to consider the likelihood that Hillary Clinton will not put the economic interests of ordinary Americans above that of her big Wall Street donors when it comes to ther kind of meaningful financial reform that could prevent the next crash that hurt so many of us.
This is a message that needs to be repeated as long as so many Democratic voters are willfully blinding themselves to that reality.
Your attempt to assign ulterior motives is an indication of how tightly you cling to those blinders.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I am a Bernie supporter, first.
I am as much or more of a socialist than he is, and as liberal as I think is possible in all issues and areas (maybe I dont act it all the time because I am not perfect).
I believe what George Carlin has said about politicians
It is only 3 minutes, watch it and I agree with EVERY word
Having said ALL that, as far to the left I am compared to someone like Hillary, that is the gap between Hillary and anyone on the right when it comes to ALL social issues and foreign affairs.
I am ASSUMING Hillary, if elected, will be far more answerable to Wall Street than to you and me, which is WHY I am supporting Bernie, but at the end of the day, if she is the nominee, I want her to win so as to avoid the nightmarish catastrophe the cons would visit upon us, the first and foremost of which would be the end of Roe v Wade.
Martin Eden
(12,885 posts)... the LOL in your subject title with the implication that any of it needs to be explained to me.
If you construed my post to mean I'd rather have a Rethug in the White House than Hillary, then you didn't catch my meaning at all.
The choice at hand is between Bernie and the Dem candidate who, as we both pointed out, "will be far more answerable to Wall Street than to you and me."
How can a Democrat who understands that prefer Hillary over Bernie, except if they are somehow convinced Bernie would lose to the Rethug in the GE?
On the contray, what I've mostly seen from Hillary supporters is denial that she will be far more answerable to Wall Street ... and to not see THAT, blinders are required.
And BTW, I saw that Carlin video years ago. That man was a sage, as well as a tremendous comedic talent.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Let that comfort you as she privatizes your social security, destroys what's left of your privacy, and sends your kids to some godawful dusty place to protect the assets of her wealthy campaign contributors.
randys1
(16,286 posts)It would suck if she did, for sure.
Here is what I know, the republican WILL do those things and much more.
The very first day in office.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I believe she will act as President of all, which is what she should do. WS won't get a big return on their investment, IMO. We will get a "return."
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Why would she start now. As usual her attackers fail to understand that she was the senator for NY, NY'ers are liberals, it's the banking capital of the world, and PEOPLE who work in banking donated to her. Not banks - PEOPLE.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)By bringing them into her campaign in 2015.
Oh, and your 'Corporations are people my friend' line sounds familiar too.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Voted for the Bankruptcy Bill making it more difficult for broke & struggling
people to declare bankruptcy.
These two come to mind off the top of my head.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Try to remember that. Glass Steagall was a republican bill by the way.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You are all so fond of saying she changes here opinions to put on an act. So why doesn't she on this issue? The bare facts are that she is right, and her bank regulation is more comprehensive than this feel good BS about reinstating Glass Steagall. Paul Krugman agrees, and he has not been hesitant to criticize Dems in the past.
The danger of doing something pointless is that people will think the problem is solved when it isn't. I applaud HRC for being the adult in the room that points that out.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)And Bernie Sanders of course.
Krugman is spot on much of the time, but not on this one.
We clearly disagree, so perhaps we can at least agree on that.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Her plan is more comprehensive and goes beyond the problems with commercial banking.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Goldman Sachs is already “too big to fail.” But now the megabank is quietly trying to get even bigger, with little transparency or oversight.1
A few months ago, Goldman Sachs announced its intention to buy an online banking unit worth $16 billion from GE Capital. The purchase would move the former investment bank deeper into the realm of federally-insured commercial banking, without providing any clear benefit to consumers or communities in need.2
This is exactly the type of behavior that we could avoid if the Glass-Steagall Act were reinstated — separating risky investment banking from commercial banking, and protecting Americans’ savings accounts from Wall Street’s gambling.
https://act.credoaction.com/sign/Goldman_Sachs_GE?t=1&akid=16029.8486369.Trm57V
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)"Goldman Sachs caused a bit of a stir this week by issuing an analysts’ report suggesting JPMorgan Chase might want to break itself up. I believe in the independence of investment bank research as much as the next person, but it is hard not to notice that the major beneficiary of such a step would be Goldman Sachs.
That is not to say it is a bad idea. In fact, it may be a very good idea, possibly for JPMorgan’s shareholders, and definitely for society as a whole. It also suggests that the world’s banking regulators are steadily coming around to the idea of dismantling the largest banks with their own tools rather than relying on governments to do the right thing. If so, jolly good luck to them."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4a7163a-95c3-11e4-a390-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3rmeajjP7
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Seriously. It outlaws banks gambling with FDIC insured deposits. Do you understand the implications of that, or do you simply not care?
A Donor’s Gift Soon Followed Clinton’s Help
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/washington/04clinton.html?_r=0
An upstate New York developer donated $100,000 to former President Bill Clinton’s foundation in November 2004, around the same time that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure millions of dollars in federal assistance for the businessman’s mall project.
Mrs. Clinton helped enact legislation allowing the developer, Robert J. Congel, to use tax-exempt bonds to help finance the construction of the Destiny USA entertainment and shopping complex, an expansion of the Carousel Center in Syracuse.
Mrs. Clinton also helped secure a provision in a highway bill that set aside $5 million for Destiny USA roadway construction.
The bill with the tax-free bonds provision became law in October 2004, weeks before the donation, and the highway bill with the set-aside became law in August 2005, about nine months after the donation.
Mr. Congel and Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, both said there was no connection between his donation and her legislative work on his project’s behalf.
....
According to the Federal Election Commission Web site, Mr. Congel gave $2,000 to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in October 1999 and gave her political action committee a total of $12,500 from March 2002 to January 2005. He has continued to donate to Mrs. Clinton’s campaigns in the years since the two bills helping Destiny USA passed.
Mr. Congel’s campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Schumer were the subject of news media reports around the time that the “green bonds” measure passed. But his $100,000 donation to Mr. Clinton’s foundation in November 2004 was not known at the time.
Keith Ashdown, the chief investigator for Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit group, said the money illustrated why donations to presidential foundations should be disclosed.
The Destiny USA project has attracted criticism. Stephanie Miner, a member of the Syracuse City Council, called it a “boondoggle” that won tax breaks with dubious economic and environmental promises.
So you look a bit and find:
Congel's company
http://www.pyramidmg.com/index.php?page=contact
The Pyramid Companies
The Clinton Exchange
4 Clinton Square
Syracuse, NY 13202
Phone: 315.422.7000
Fax: 315.422.2717
E-mail: info@pyramidmg.com
Website: www.pyramidmg.com
They even named a street after the Clintons in gratitude!! Maybe it's all on the up and up but it looks pretty bad to the average voter in a campaign ad, doesn't it? It's almost brash.
This was from last April. I haven't chased it down to get to the bottom of it (maybe folks here did)
Top fundraiser opts out of Hillary campaign as Clinton Foundation hit by 'slush fund' verdict
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3057543/Top-fundraiser-opts-Hillary-campaign-Clinton-Foundation-hit-slush-fund-verdict.html
but again, not good news
Has she been vetted for the stuff in this book?:
Clinton Cash LP: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062407791?ie=UTF8&isInIframe=1&n=283155&redirect=true&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#iframe-wrapper
Again, I'm not sure. I've just started looking into this stuff.
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
Clinton Charities Refile 6 Years Of Tax Returns To Amend Errors (Today's news)
The charities have come under renewed scrutiny this year with Hillary Clinton's decision to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-foundation-tax-forms_564ae72be4b08cda348a6239?utm_hp_ref=politics
Bill and Hillary are super rich. It's hard to imagine them being motivated to doing stuff for money now. So I do not take any of the above deeply to heart. But here's my problem for candidate Clinton: give that stuff to O'Keefe or Karl Rove and see what ads they come up with in the general? That's where it becomes a bigger deal. These are the same folks who convinced a significant percentage of Americans that Obama was a Muslim and born in Kenya and swiftboated John Kerry and damaged Planned Parenthood with bogus accusations.
I do fear Hillary's campaign is going to get carpet bombed with stuff like this and they'll be so tied up with defending her, she won't be able to get a positive message out to attract voters. That's what really bothers me about this stuff.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The concept of people attacking the Clinton's with nonsense is not new. Do you also think they killed Vince Foster, and dealt cocaine in AR?
Jarqui
(10,131 posts)Nor as I said above, do I believe all the stuff out there that I linked in my post above. You need to read what I said more carefully.
To us, it may be "BS and innuendo" though when you step back and look at it objectively, some of it doesn't look too good.
But here's an example of the real problem:
In a poll taken Sept 2015, 43% of Republicans and 33% of Americans still believe Obama is a closet Muslim and 20% still believe Obama was not born in America.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/253515-poll-43-percent-of-republicans-believe-obama-is-a-muslim
I suspect you and I and the rest of America believe Obama is a Christian who was born in Hawaii.
How did that happen? A significant percentage of Americans fall for this dishonest crap. Swiftboating contributed to being the difference in 2004 when Bush beat John Kerry's by only 2.4% - Bush only had to move 1.2% from Kerry's column to his with the swiftboat ads..
Hillary is probably going to clean Bernie's clock in the primary (I say that still wanting Bernie to win). If she does, I very much want Hillary to win over the GOP.
My concern with Hillary as a candidate is the amount of baggage. It's a worse situation than 100% untrue rumors like Obama being a Muslim or not born in the USA because, like O'Keefe has done so many time (See Planned Parenthood or ACORN), they can take a little truth and bend it into something else that hurts our candidate. There are a lot of these stories where they can do that with Hillary and the more truth they have to work with, the tougher they are to combat - the more they stick.
My concern with Hillary as a candidate is that with her history, she is far more prone to this kind of thing than Obama or Kerry.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)LBJ's opponent was a pig farmer, and Johnson told his staff to release a statement that his opponent was having sex with his pigs.
A staffer replied, "But, that's not true".
Johnson said, "I know that. I just want him to deny it".
Jarqui
(10,131 posts)The more true facts they can weave into it, the better it sticks with voters because it's harder to see as false with so many true facts.
I can almost guarantee you, voters will see some sort of video connecting the Clinton foundation and these alleged kick backs, etc.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/10/hillary-clintons-favors-to-foundation-donors-stret/?page=all
Karl Rove & company (or whoever is filling in for Karl this time around after he blew all the millions in ad money in 2012) are not going to pass on that stuff. Hillary is much more susceptible to it than Bernie.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)You don't understand the history of this situation very accurately.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I have asked this question over and over and over, yet there is never a credible response. Even Bernie could not come up with one in the debate. Enough already.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Seriously. Go look. Show me one article you have done an ounce of homework.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I have asked this question over and over and over, yet none of you that accuse her of such can give any examples. Why is that?
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And her economic advisers are Wall Street watchdogs.
Response to JaneyVee (Reply #6)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #16)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Wall Street and Megacorporations right?
Do you not tealize what a joke you seem like when you say such things that are so patently naive and ignorant of facts?
azmom
(5,208 posts)Dumb and blind to Hillary's faults. That's all I can surmise when reading this idiocy.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)What have you got against people earning a living? Your buddy Robert Reich (big Bernie supporter) gets paid $35K for a 45 min speech by the same kind of folks. And that is his MINIMUM rate. Are you attacking him, too?
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)To say so is an insult to people who actually do hard work.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Having spent 8 years of my 25 years doing seminars I can assure you that it is work. Researching and preparing the material is work. Preparing for the Q&A that follows is work. The travel is exhausting. Living in hotels and being away from family is not fun.
How insulting to declare that it is not real work. Wow.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)And I doubt the Clintons were suffering being wined and dined through all of that.
Also, do you honestly think you speeches or anyone's for that matter are really worth hundreds of thousands of dollars?
If you do then I don't think you know what real people do just to make $8.15 per hour.
I don't think the priveleged class has any idea what real people suffer through to barely get by.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And I would tell you what I think about that, but I would get a hide.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)for the banksters............
Now, before you say this was all for charity......... her tax records don't confirm that falsehood....
Wall Street and the banksters made her a millionaire
Documented through her tax records.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)she is, just as they have been about Obama, though hopefully by then a lot less worked up over seeing their best days behind them. They've really been way over the top about Obama's determination to "destroy" business, but by now any idiot should be able to see that the wheel has turned once again.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 17, 2015, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)from the candidate.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)She won't touch them...she and Willie LOVE the big money and big power.
December 17, 2015...NYC...fundraiser hosted by the Clintons for the DNC...$33,400 per plate with an option to add $10,000.
How many Banksters will be there? Plenty...and I doubt that she'll say "Cut it out!" to any of them.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)In fact - It would be impossible - EVEN IF SHE WANTED TO.
Are you willing to bet your Social Security and Medicare that she would even want to?
I"m not.
onecaliberal
(32,994 posts)in return. Seriously. I cannot believe anyone could be that naïve. Did they just fall off that proverbial turnip truck.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
onecaliberal
(32,994 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I can't top that. LOL
