Clinton looks to build support on left while keeping Wall St. friends

[RiverLover]

Clinton looks to build support on left while keeping Wall St. friends
The Hill 1/29/15

Hillary Clinton is working to shore up support on the left while not alienating her longtime supporters on Wall Street, as she moves closer to announcing a bid for the White House.

It’s a difficult balancing act for Clinton, who has many ties to the financial world from her time as a senator from New York and is expected to rake in significant cash from Wall Street during the campaign.

The former secretary of State has signaled in distinct ways that she wants to tie her campaign to calls for tackling income inequality and wage growth championed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and the left wing of the Democratic Party. But she wants to accomplish this without coming across as a class warrior or enemy to her old friends.

In recent weeks, Clinton has been discussing how to thread the needle, according to allies. She’s sought out opinions from those on both sides of the Wall Street debate as part of a listening tour of sorts.

Not coincidentally, she’s indicated where she’s headed in her would-be campaign with a couple of messages on Twitter.

“Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong,” Clinton wrote on the social media network earlier this month. “Better for Congress to focus on jobs and wages for middle class families.”

A few days later, and minutes after President Obama finished delivering his State of the Union address, Clinton weighed in to say it “pointed [the] way to an economy that works for all” adding, “Now we need to step up [and] deliver for the middle class.” She used the hashtags “Fair Shot” and “Fair Share” to accompany her 140-character message.

Clinton’s recent stance is meant to assuage the left, which is itching for a candidate like Warren to enter the race and has expressed wariness of the former first lady.

“I think she’s moving there rhetorically,” said Michael Lux, the co-founder and CEO of Progressive Strategies, a consulting firm focused on building the progressive movement and their positions.

...The narrative began during the Clinton administration, when Bill Clinton presided over financial deregulation and picked Wall Street executive Robert Rubin to run the Department of Treasury.

...“If you say, ‘Is she on the Elizabeth Warren side or the other side,’ she’s much more left of center,” said one Clinton confidante who is familiar with her thinking on economic issues. “People should not confuse her long-term relationships with people in New York. She has personal relationships with a lot of these people. But that does not translate into being the Wall Street go-to person.”...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/231102-clinton-looks-to-build-support-on-left-while-keeping-wall-st-friends

[AtomicKitten]

1. I've seen that trick before ...

[Autumn]

2. It's a good thing that she has a sturdy net under that tightrope she's gonna try to walk.

[hatrack]

3. Lots of luck with that . . .

[RiverLover]

6. Acting lessons might help.

She needs to work on her "populist speak."

[MannyGoldstein]

83. That was cringe inducing

She reminded me of Andy Kauffman on Saturday Night Live.

[marmar]

4. Rerun of a bad movie......

...... She'll talk like a populist even as Goldman Sachs, Citi, Wells Fargo etc are stuffing her pockets. And once elected, guess which constituency gets rewarded?

[Renew Deal]

10. In 2008 it was pretty clear a Democrat was going to win

So Dems received a lot of Wall St cash. We controlled the entire congress and the Democratic candidate looked like a winner. It will be interesting to see how things play out if this race looks more competitive.

[Renew Deal]

5. This is always the balancing act for a credible Democratic candidate

The alternatives are John Edwards "two Americas" talk which wasn't believable coming from him or the Kucinich happy talk which was unelectable.

Obama did a great job of finding the balance in rhetoric.

And on the other side you have republicans who take the I orders from big business.

[vi5]

8. Yes, but usually

The person doing it is able to maintain a fair degree of credibility based on past actions, or at least enough of a slick, vague fogginess that leads us to be able project what we want on to them.

Hillary doesn't have either. She's got too long a track record.*

*Please note this is strictly with regard to populism vs. Wall Street. I know her social liberal bona fides are fine and she won't have any issue with those.

[Autumn]

23. Hillary's "talk" about income inequality and wage growth isn't exactly believable

I see that as a problem.

[Renew Deal]

24. That's the same thing Romney said yesterday.

[Autumn]

25. Well damn, that sucks. Broken clock and all that shit.

Her rhetoric is still unbelievable, Another idiot republican said "fool me once, tee he, can't get fooled again."

“Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong,” It just don't get any clearer than that, mittens, didn't say that neither did idiot son.

[Renew Deal]

28. How is that quote a problem?

It supports financial reform. Do you have a link?

I found it. You disagree with this?

Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong. Better for Congress to focus on jobs and wages for middle class families.

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/556163273738166272

[Autumn]

53. Depends on how you read it and what class you belong to and how much faith in congress you have. eom

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. “Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong,” Clinton wrote

Need she say more? What a fake

[RiverLover]

11. That one cracked me up.

Such conviction!!

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. Just another quote we need to save......

Thanks Hillary ....lol

[Renew Deal]

29. No, you need to say more.

What is the issue with that quote?

"Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong. Better for Congress to focus on jobs and wages for middle class families."

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/556163273738166272

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. What a joke .......the two are tied together like a knot

Its risky and wrong for her not for a democrat.

[Renew Deal]

34. Your post doesn't make sense.

She is saying attacking financial reform is risky and wrong. What is disagreeable about that?

"Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong. Better for Congress to focus on jobs and wages for middle class families."

[Ichingcarpenter]

36. No profile in courage and the truth is

she doesn't make sense .....why is it risky? why is wrong?

answer me that batman.

[Renew Deal]

48. What is risky and wrong about attacking financial reform?

I think the answers are well known now. But this is a tweet, not some congressional speech.

With Dodd-Frank Rollback, The Big Bad Banks Are Back

<snip>
The provision enables the big banks once again to use insured deposits and other taxpayer subsidies and guarantees to gamble in the derivatives markets—the very type of business that drove the 2008 financial crisis and the economic devastation that followed.
<snip>

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/12/12/with-dodd-frank-rollback-the-big-bad-banks-are-back

I'd charachterize that as "risky" and "wrong"

[hatrack]

49. Hell, Gramm Leach Bliley was "Financial Reform" - you do remember that, don't you?

And you do remember who signed it, don't you?

And you do remember the general trend of events nationally and globally since 2008, don't you?

"Reform" is kind of in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

[Renew Deal]

50. Who signed it?

Let's see if the person that signed it is the person this thread is about.

[hatrack]

72. That would be her husband; and the squishy fruit doesn't fall far from the neolib tree

Went through her legislative record as a Senator, and here's what I found. These are bills she originated.

Call me old-fashioned, but I was working on the theory that if there were issues she was really concerned about, they'd show up in the legislation she wrote.

I may have missed a bill or three, but here's just how willing she was to "crack down" on Wall Street when she had the power to originate legislation doing so:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2866


Full Title
A bill to require greater disclosure of senior corporate officer compensation, to empower shareholders and investors to protect themselves from fraud, to limit conflicts of interest in determining senior corporate officer compensation, to ensure integrity in Federal contracting, to close corporate tax loopholes utilized to subsidize senior corporate officer compensation, and for other purposes.
Summary

Library of Congress »
4/15/2008--Introduced.Corporate Executive Compensation Accountability and Transparency Act - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to the limit annual aggregate amounts which may be deferred under nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements.Amends the Sarbanes-Oxley ...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2114

Full Title
A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to provide for enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation of mortgage brokers, and for other purposes.
Summary

Library of Congress »
9/27/2007--Introduced.American Home Ownership Preservation Act of 2007 - Amends the Truth in Lending Act to require certain mortgage originators or lenders with primary responsibility for underwriting an assessment on a ...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/s1383

S. 1383 (107th): A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment of incentive stock options and employee ... ... stock purchases.

8/3/2001--Introduced.Amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude stock options and employee stock purchase plans from the definition of wages for purposes of employment taxes.

Oh, and only five co-sponsors on this one:

Pat Roberts
Mike Enzi
Evan Bayh
Kay Hutchinson
George Allen

[Ichingcarpenter]

74. Bill said we get him and her with her presidency

I'm feeling really good now that we know that.

Sort of like knowing my parents abused me and it will set me free.

[HappyMe]

9. Oh please.

Talk is cheap.

[djean111]

12. I would respect her more if she didn't bother,

She isn't going to bother if she gets elected.
So - she is trying to figure out what rhetoric to use to rope in the Left. Wow. Fail.

[SamKnause]

13. Well good luck with that.

I think we know who she will throw under the bus, and it will not be her Wall Street buddies.

[benz380]

17. Yep! Voters will be under the bus while her Wall Street buddies & their money will be in the bus. nt

[Thinkingabout]

15. Looks like the over and over again attack on working people of the US, sounds like you would rather

go after Wall Street than helping get salaries up for the working people of the US. What is wrong with helping the working people? Why do the working people have to wait another decade? This is shameful, working people continue to struggle every day and their needs are overlooked or just told to wait some more time.

[RiverLover]

16. You are so obvious. nt

[HappyMe]

18. What is wrong with doing both?

Wall Street needs to be held accountable. Help is needed for the poor, and those that aren't working as well as working people.

[winter is coming]

20. +1. We're not going to significantly raise wages without going after the 1%.

Income inequality isn't just about paychecks. It's about the fundamental idea that government should benefit everyone, not just the 1%.

[Thinkingabout]

33. Nothing wrong with doing both but right now the working people needs priority.

[HappyMe]

37. Not necessarily.

Not nailing the Wall Street asshats will enable them to take further advantage of people. The further you push back dealing with them, the worse it will get.
Not ripping unemployment or SNAP away from people is a bigger priority. Not messing with Social Security and the ACA is a big priority too. All of those things help working people.

[Thinkingabout]

42. I need to be able earn enough money to support myself, this is important to myself plus others

who is trying to support a family, get the working people enough money to support our families and we will not have to worry about the other programs. It is the jobs and livable wages which are important.

[HappyMe]

45. The Wall Street people and big corporations

are the ones with the money. If you don't deal with them - no money for the rest of us.

[Thinkingabout]

51. Tell a kid who has to go to bed at night hungry prosecuting Wall Street is more important.

[truebluegreen]

63. I saw what you did there.

"Prosecuting Wall St" is not equivalent to changing the policies, tax code, etc that profit Wall St and the rich to the detriment of the rest of us.

Quit moving the goal posts in the middle of a discussion.

[Thinkingabout]

66. Since many are wondering why there are not some involved with Wall Street in prison, how does one

got to prison?

[truebluegreen]

86. Good question, and totally off the point of the posts you were addressing.

Nice try.

[Thinkingabout]

88. One needs to be prosecuted before going to prison or normally this is part of

Process for people to be sentenced to prison so it is totally on point with what I was addressing.

[truebluegreen]

90. Gosh I never knew that, about due process and stuff.

Nobody was talking about "prosecution" but you...so I guess you are correct: you brought up prosecution, and then addressed it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

38. where you gonna get the money?

wishes......dreams.....hope?

[HappyMe]

39. But...but...it won't trickle down?

[Thinkingabout]

44. No it will not trickle down, this was Reagan's folly, started in the 80's, it has not happened, in

fact income inequality has gotten further apart. People wants to work and take care of their families, we want to live working on jobs which takes care of our families and not depend on unemployment and other social nets.

[HappyMe]

46. Fine. But you still can't yank

those nets away. You never know when you might need it.

Leaving the Wall Street crooks alone won't help anybody either.

[Thinkingabout]

54. You missed the complete statement Hillary made, she said better to focus on jobs and wages.

Prosecuting takes time, really not the job of Congress, this is the DOJ, Congress should be about getting minimum wages up and creating jobs. Why would you even think a GOP Congress is going to reign in Wall Street? these are some more consequences of failing to elect Democrats which help the working people. The next time you hear or read a post where someone isn't going to vote because a candidate may not be their perfect candidate, tell them thank you for the GOP Congress.

[HappyMe]

56. There's a GOP Congress because Democrats didn't show up.

I'm for Bernie Sanders.

[Thinkingabout]

61. Do you know there are more Democrats than Republicans? Go figure, somebody did not show up to vote

and others did, what do you think the problem is?

[truebluegreen]

64. Um, they don't like the current crop of Democrats?

Like the ones who pander to Wall St and the corporations, for example?

[Thinkingabout]

67. Exactly what I said before, they don't have a perfect candidate so they don't vote. This is a

problem, this is how GOP members gets elected.

[winter is coming]

78. Since when is wanting a candidate that represents you a demand for "perfect"?

I'd consider that a pretty basic requirement. If you're running to represent the people, you should represent them.

[Thinkingabout]

79. Then if you choose not to vote because the candidate does not stand with you

On every issue be happy when a Republican is elected, do they stand with you in every issue?

[winter is coming]

81. Who said anything about "every issue"? Only you.

People don't turn out when they feel the issues that concern them most won't be satisfactorily addressed by either party. That's not a demand for perfection or an expectation that a candidate will agree with them on every little thing, either. It's an acknowledgement that no matter who they choose, the system won't be working for them.

[Thinkingabout]

82. As I said be happy with the Republican, apparently you think not turning out to vote

Fixes the problem. BTW, some posters state because a candidate does not hold their position on an issue they will not vote or just stay home.

[winter is coming]

84. I haven't said that not turning out vote "fixes the problem".

Looking at your responses throughout this thread, you're either incapable of understanding what other people say or unwilling to respond to their actual arguments. Either way, I'm done with you.

[Thinkingabout]

89. What?

[RiverLover]

47. What did Bill Clinton do to end Reaganomics & trickle down? nt

[winter is coming]

77. +1. There will be a lot of candidates talking about income inequality next year.

They'll be talking about helping the little guy. Very few of those candidates will have a track record consistent with their statements. Scratch the surface on their proposals and I predict you'll see more trickle-down. Different wrapper, same bullshit. No, we're not going to regulate and tax corporations, we're going to give businesses even more tax cuts to "create jobs."

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. you post sounds like

you don't think wall street is correlated to inccome inequality and the poor

You can't be that oblvious and naive?

[Thinkingabout]

35. I am neither oblvious nor naive, I wonder about those so interested in placing Wall Street above

the working people of the US, these are the ones who needs help, has needed help for the last few decades, how much longer should they wait, until all the crooks on wall street are put in jail. I knew about income inequality in the 70's.

[Ichingcarpenter]

52. She places Wall Street and the Financial system above the people

by her statement. ........by doing nothing and afraid and calling it risky.

[Thinkingabout]

55. You have it backwards, you want Wall Street above the people, change your priorities, put the people

first.

[Ichingcarpenter]

57. Good Grief......you are dense

where is hillary gonna get the money to help the middle class and the poor.

from Bill?

There is so much that can be done to reform wallstreet and the banking system which would help the people and it won't come from borrowing it ...... they are in the same Gordian Knot

[Thinkingabout]

60. Let's see, could having jobs at livable wages helpful to people interested in providing for their

important? Do you think the first thing which enters the minds of parents when they go to a grocery store "Oh, we need to reform Wall Street, I don't need to feed my children or provide a roof over their head and clothe them, but I do want to focus on reforming Wall Street". Do you really think reforming Wall Street more important than our daily needs? If you do then you need to tell yourself how dense you are.

Also, you don't know the issues Hillary has been advocating in her life.

[Ichingcarpenter]

68. Of course we do but

your illlusion of how to do it is just imaginary without tackling the causes of it and supports the 1 percent.

[Thinkingabout]

69. And you illusion of how to help working people helps who? Get the jobs going, reform the taxes

reform Wall Street but give the priority to working people, we are many more in numbers than the 1%. JOBS FIRST.

[Ichingcarpenter]

70. get the money from wall street, taxes and the banks

they are part of the knot

BTW.... I knew Ann Richards when she was the county commisioner in Austin and my brother was county judge....... she would agree with me.

[Thinkingabout]

71. Oh, yea, she was for the WORKING PEOPLE. She knew Americans having jobs and a livable wage was very

important.

[bigwillq]

21. I am no friend of Hillary

And I will never vote for her.

[jeff47]

22. You need to take out the square brackets in the last paragraph.

DU considers square brackets (the keys to the right of P) to be tags, so it tries to parse what's inside them. When it fails, it just doesn't show what's in the brackets.

Try changing the square brackets to parentheses so the end of the sentence renders.

[RiverLover]

40. Done.

Thanks!

[jwirr]

26. Didn't she have a role in starting this TPP thing? She is going to have to learn to twist herself

into a knot because the goals of Wall Street interfere with the needs of the 99%.

Higher taxes on the rich?

Trade agreements that favor corporations over labor?

Regulations of Wall Street including going back to smaller banks and keeping our personal money (including Social Security) out of the mix?

Forgot to mention action on climate change vs more money for Wall Street?

I do not see a way she can do this and still tell the truth.

[RiverLover]

41. Exactly.

And that's why her economic left(democratic) words ring hollow to all but the low-information voters. And that's why Wall Street still loves her, they know she has to placate us during the campaign.

[jeff47]

43. It started under W.

But she also hasn't said anything negative about it, or made any public attempts to derail it or otherwise make it not hurt the US.

[fredamae]

27. At the end of the day

Does it actually matter at All what the electorate is sold...errr I mean-told - when the rubber meets the road AFTER they're elected...regardless of party?

Their established Records of service/votes etc - IF we're willing to do the research ourselves And Ignore all Political ads - tells Us Exactly Who the person is and Who they favor and Who they'll be working For.
Period.
It is that simple.

[on point]

30. BS words for the left, all action for the right. No thanks

If she wants to be a real progressive she actively work to see:
Bush regime prosecuted for torture
Eliminate bush tax cuts for wealthy, return their tax rate to 70% (and pay down debt btw)
Eliminate difference in treatment of wages, dividends, carried interest, captital gains so all taxed the same rate as stadandrd income tax - simplifies tax system btw
Cut military spending (and pay down debt btw)
Raise the cap on social security wages to fix minor SCSI problem
Campaign against the TPP and other rip offs

Then she can talk progressive. Otherwise she is just trying to con us again and she may be badly misreading mood of American people who are tired of being taken

[libodem]

32. Oh, Really

We the poor people?

Really?

I've heard she is warm and lovely in person and cares about women's issues. I wish it translated through the television.
In fact I've heard that Bill is more chilly in person but his chrisma comes through on tv. He seems accepting and friendly.

I do think her latest speeches seem less like a mother yelling at me and more like a sister loudly and boldly giving emphasis. It is better if she just talks loud and doesn't holler when she gives a speech.

Best of luck.

[sabrina 1]

58. Why would a Democrat have to 'try to balance' anything when it comes to Wall St V The People?

Isn't she aware of the evidence that Wall St is the ENEMY of the Working class?

How will she 'balance' the huge tax breaks they receive for sending American jobs overseas?

How does someone try to excuse that? Let them go overseas, fine, but not with the people's money in their pockets.

I'd like to ask her about those tax cuts for the wealthy.

And how will 'balance' the attempt to cut SS benefits, to privatize the program so it can be gambled away on Wall St with her buddies AGAIN feeding off the Government and its people, to earn even MORE PROFITS while taking away from this country's most vulnerable people.

The issues are clear and a sincere person doesn't NEED to 'balance' anything.

Words, someone needs to tell here, words mean nothing. Actions speak louder than words, and the admission that she has to keep her Wall St friends happy, are enough words for me to that anything we hear in the campaign regarding the people, will all be forgotten should she enter the WH.

Watch what they do, not what they say because when you have to ask professional political operatives how to use your words to essentially deceive people, you are not sincere.

[FiveGoodMen]

59. "Isn't she aware of the evidence that Wall St is the ENEMY of the Working class?"

She's aware.

She's also the enemy of the Working class.

But she'd still like their money and their votes.

She's hoping that Democratic voters will be stupid/corrupt enough not to care.

[sabrina 1]

65. A few years ago, voters might have been that stupid. But a lot has happened

which her handlers should realize, since those days. They should listen to what the voters said, loud and clear, in two mid terms eg, instead of BLAMING the voters, claiming they wanted them to 'move more to the Right'???

But there is no indication that they will listen to the voters. Their strategy appears to be 'how can we fool THEM without upsetting our real bosses'.

Bernie, eg, doesn't appear to need political operatives, and polls telling him what to say, before he says what he says.

I hope she decides not to run, for everyone's sake.

It's time to end the status quo, way past time. We need new and fresh ideas to drag this country back from the old ones that have failed the PEOPLE so miserably.


And there are plenty of good progressive people in this country, who can do that.

Sherrod Brown comes to mind, along with Bernie and Warren. And several others.

Let the party stop agonizing over how to present old ideas as if they were not so old and failed. That has to be very taxing, no pun intended.

It would be so much easier to back a candidate who is the real thing and doesn't need all the 'makeup' to cover the flaws.

[MohRokTah]

62. No Democrat is capable of winning the presidency in 2016 without raising $1 billion.

Tell me how somebody does that without rich donors.

[libdem4life]

87. Bingo. Like it or not...it's unemotional, non-partisan fact. And the other would-be

candidates are smart enough to get that and don't want to throw in as a loser and risk not keeping the White House for 8 more years and 2 SCOTUS choices.

No matter how people/other Democrats hate Hillary, that does not create a new, viable national candidate willing or able to put together a staff ...that's the benefit of early money...and that's no small feat, and it's damn expensive and not family friendly. Their career would be over.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

73. We will embrace this rebellion. You will support it from our lands in the north

while I gain English favor by condemning it, and ordering it opposed from our lands in the south.

[Ichingcarpenter]

76. England is too rich and powerful and we will lose this rebellion because Washington is weak.

You need a billion dollars now to buy the souls of humanity. Might as well give in and up
to the money problem that corrupts our souls.

[hifiguy]

75. Ha! YOu can't be just a little bit corrupt, Hil.

We won't get fooled again.

Don't you have a lunch date with your pals Kissinger and Blankfein where you can grovel before them?

[DonCoquixote]

80. The Problem is

That Hillary has kept her powder dry for so long that it seems unbelivable that she will tranform into a true, attack wall street, defend civil rights, LIBERAL.

Hell, she kept her powder dry back in 2004, when kerry got swift boated to hell, because she knoew what she was doing 2008. Then along came Obama.

So, we know that she is waiting for some precise, calculated move, even though we know that the nasters of the media and the funds will ensure there is never the right moment to make a move. Simply put, Liberals try to use a sniper rifle, GOP just comes in with ak-47's they bought from the gun show and starts spraying.

What is worse is that Liberals know that it is possible to give glorious overtures to the left and then have Lucy pull the football. Obama did that trick, and we know who taught him. Yes, Hillary knows how to say the right things, but unlike Obama, we have almost 20 years of knowing what she actually WILL DO. Remember that bit where she condemned Bibi for attempting to speak before Congress as if he was the president? I don't, because she did not. Indeed, how many times has she EVER stood up to Bibi?

How many times has she condemned Goldman Sachs? Hell, even in pro wrestling, the same two people that are best friends offstage have to pretend to throw a punch. If a wrestler cannot even put on the show (or "kayfabe" as they say in the biz) then that person is out of there. She could have easily done so, or even worse, just have Bill do it, and it would have been cheap, but now, Bill is reserved for calling Obama a "wuss" for not promoting the Syrian war that gave us ISIS, or for not submitting to keystone XL, there Bill can get real vocal, and not a WORD from Hillary?

Geesh, you would think that the sight of Hillary slapping Bill around would only give her supporters ammo, as if to say "see, Hillary don't even take shit from Bill!" Nope...Hillary is playing the same 3-d chess that Obama did, and we are tired of it. We know the only reason she is making nice is because if she loses to Jeb, the media will, in addition to saying she waas too far to the right, say that she could not win the left.

[99Forever]

85. Well, this guy "on the left" isn't fooled by this bullshit.

Pretty lying freakin' words to appease "on the left" ain't gonna cut it this time around. No way. No how. Not now, not ever.