Discussion for article #242860
I thought the line about the majority of her donors being women was effective, but the attempt to say that the reason for her Wall Street donations were because of 9/11 came off as, at best implausible and evasive, and frankly kind of bizarre.
9 Likes
Her comment wasn’t well thought out, but all she was saying is that she was the Senator for New York, where Wall Street is, so people who work on Wall Street were her constituents, and she worked hard to benefit those constituents, as all Senators do. It follows, as she noted, that she became well known to those Wall Streeters, so they do donate to her as a result.
11 Likes
Never ever invoke the specter of 9/11 unless the question directly addresses that horrid day. It reminds us all too much of the ghouls of the GOP who used the dead of 9/11 to further their neocon agenda. Let us not mimic Rudy “a noun, a verb, and 9/11” Giuliani.
12 Likes
Her comment wasn’t well thought out, but all she was saying is that she was the Senator for New York, where Wall Street is, so people who work on Wall Street were her constituents, and she worked hard to benefit those constituents, as all Senators do. It follows, as she noted, that she became well known to those Wall Streeters, so they do donate to her as a result.
Sure, and if anyone wants to believe that that’s the only reason, or even the main reason, why Wall Street has been and continues to be so generous to her…well, they are welcome to believe that. But I don’t think most Americans are anywhere near that naive about the role big money plays in politics.
8 Likes
While I’m happy Sen. Sanders brought up the issue because it is an important point–one to be watched–I also feel that Clinton’s point about representing NY at that time, it makes sense that many on Wall Street (NYC) would give her campaign dollars. First off, Hillary is very centrist and faces right when it comes to money and regulations–two issues near and dear to Wall Streeters. Her tenure in the Senate would very likely never be anything close to anti-Wall Street, etc. Almost all big corporations and such give at least nominal amounts to BOTH campaigns in these types of races. To flesh out this issue better, it might be good to research how much Wall Street, overall–and Hillary donors, in particular–gave to each of the nominees in those races. I’m betting Hillary’s Republican opponent fared quite well, too.
All of that said, I do feel that it is likely that Hillary Clinton DID make a lot of new friends and supporters from some who may have been tepid or non-supporters of her before, because of her representation of NY citizens and corporations. I hope she doesn’t harp on the issue–because that would be crass and just wrong–but I really do find it plausible and very likely that she garnered a decent amount of respect from those she represented during that time. Also, Wall Street did exceedingly well during the first Clinton’s presidency – and that good will, etc., was likely to spill over some.
Again, I’m glad Sen. Sanders brought the issue up. It is totally fair and one she should be prepared to answer–like all of them.
7 Likes
Does anyone here think that Sanders’ claim that “The business model of Wall Street is fraud” might have gone a little far — certainly for the general election? I could see Hillary shaking her head off to the side of the frame, with the same kind of bemused / disgusted expression she had during the Benghazi hearings.
Also, the debate was only two hours, so I’m not sure why we need to hear each one of Bernie’s tag lines (“millionaires and billionaires” “break up the big banks” etc.) several times each. It will sure get tiresome over four years of his presidency — I mean these are valid issues, but you don’t convince anyone by raising your voice a little louder each time.
4 Likes
He blew an opportunity for the perfect line,when Hillary said something like “everybody on Wall Street should play by the rules”
He should have responded with “Madam Secretary, whose rules? Wall Street, through the domination of Congress, makes their own rules!”.
It was the perfect setup. and would have tied a couple of themes he was trying to drive,together very nicely.
8 Likes
She’ll say anything.
3 Likes
Certainly it doesn’t take an experienced political analyst to understand that a Senator from NY would receive contributions from Wall St.
Certainly it doesn’t take an experienced analyst to understand when Wall St was attacked on 9/11 the Senator from NY would lead the help in rebuilding it.
Duh. So why the outrage?
Further challenge to media-now Hillary is running to represent far more than Wall Street.
As readers we would like to know: how does the number of WStreet contributors compare to the number when she was their Senator?
We assume she gets more than Sanders, but how do the new numbers and amount of contributions from WStreet compare to her Republican rivals?
5 Likes
Thank you!..my thoughts exactly. I am baffled with all the circular arguments been made here, as if 9/11 is sacrosanct.
If her statement claiming that support comes as a direct result of the work she did in the aftermath of 9/11 holds up to a fact check, then I think it meets your criteria.
3 Likes
In this moment Hillary’s contempt for the intelligence of Democratic voters is on full display:
-
“You’ve impugned my integrity!”
-
Most of my donations come from WOMEN!
-
9/11! Terrorists!
That’s how she reassures the little people.
I’m surprised he didn’t reprise his line from the first debate, when he said something like “let’s be real, Congress doesn’t regulate Wall Street, Wall Street regulates Congress.” Which would have been a great opportunity to reinforce his point about Hillary’s Wall Street donors. Don’t get me wrong, I think he scored some points on the Wall Street / campaign financing issue (helped along by an unforced error from Hillary with her bizarre 9/11 gambit)…but one can always do better.
1 Like
If her statement claiming that support comes as a direct result of the work she did in the aftermath of 9/11 holds up to a fact check, then I think it meets your criteria.
Not sure how one would “fact check” such a claim. Call up past donors and ask them if that’s why they gave…and assume they’re telling the truth?
1 Like
You got it and it only makes sense, just like a Senator from Kentucky would help with the coal industry. It stands to reason.
3 Likes
The Senator from New York is the most reasonable Senator to get Wall Street donations but by far isn’t the only one.
Bernie is right in his thinking but wrong in his politics, Wall Street is an evil necessity that like it or not is a big part of the game. They can make or break some candidates and Bernie choosing to totally alienate them doesn’t bode well for his chances.
Reforming Wall Street by tightening regs and closing loopholes etc, is one thing, pissing them off and making them an enemy is a whole other kettle of fish.
I’d smile and take their money and then I’d reign them in and bring back fair regs and create new ones. If they don’t like just making many, many millions instead of their gravy mega-millions, well tough shit.
4 Likes
Amen to that! And the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, just before Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign and both of them leaving the White House “penniless”, was the coup de foie gras!
Yes. I wish Bernie had explained how the Glass-Steagall repeal funded the speculative financial and housing bubble of the 2000s in populist terms: that the big players in the banking, insurance and real estate industrys bundled federally guaranteed savings accounts, mortgages and commercial loans of ordinary Americans into risky, fraudulent “derivatives”, which they traded internationally making enormous personal profits with virtually no personal risks, since they used the guaranteed assets of other Americans. In other words, their total profit at our total risk! Governor O’Malley came closer to doing so.
1 Like
I know about all that, and it’s abhorrent — but is that all Wall Street does? Because to say “their business model is fraud” implies rather strongly that Wall Street has no redeeming purpose except to rip people off. And that seems like, I’m sorry, an exaggeration — because I know they finance mergers and acquisitions, manage IPOs, execute stock trades, manage institutional investment accounts, and so on and so forth. And we have something called the SEC that’s supposed to be a watchdog on actual fraud.
Clinton claims that her regulatory plan is actually stronger than a modernized Glass-Steagall, because it takes into account the shadow banking industry (derivative insurance, investment houses) and not just the big banks. I haven’t informed myself on the details, but she claims that Paul Krugman and Paul Volcker have endorsed her approach. Bernie didn’t address any of that. He just kept repeating “millionaires and billionaires” and “Glass-Steagall” and other mantras. Why exactly does he feel like his approach is required, and why does O’Malley think Hillary’s approach is “weak tea”? How do I know this is anything more than reflexive populism? After 2008 it’s clear re-regulation is required, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a return to a 1930s approach. Don’t we need to be competitive with the banks of London, Europe and Asia? I certainly hope the debate moves beyond this exchange of slogans the next time they meet.