Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: (Must get this off chest).... Unless Obama walks his talk on Net Neutrality, he is a Phony [View all]Divernan
(15,480 posts)31. Speechifying is not always pointless, i.e, Hillary's $400,000 from Goldman Sachs
I have absolutely no doubt she will follow through on her spoken reassurances to Big Banking.
Hillary Clinton nets $400K for 2 speeches at Goldman Sachs
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Hillary-Clinton-nets-400K-2-speeches...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/
To understand why the Warren wing of the party is making noise, look no further than a report from Ben White and Maggie Haberman in Politico Magazine Thursday. They take us to Goldman Sachs' New York headquarters, where the former secretary of state spoke to executives recently:
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and were all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isnt going to improve the economyit needs to stop. And indeed Goldmans Jim ONeill, the laconic Brit who heads the banks asset management division, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clintons minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).
That's a tidy summation of why the left doesn't totally trust Clinton and fears a return to the Wall Street-friendly Rubinite days of her husband's administration.
White and Haberman quote a relieved banker: "It was like, 'Heres someone who doesnt want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game.' Like, maybe heres someone who can lead us out of the wilderness." Of course, the progressives think Democrats are just coming out of the wilderness now: Bill de Blasio will soon be the mayor of the city where Goldman is based. Larry Summers won't chair the Federal Reserve. The Volcker Rule reigns. Now, it seems like the next Democratic nominee wants to go back down the path they've so laboriously climbed.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
174 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
(Must get this off chest).... Unless Obama walks his talk on Net Neutrality, he is a Phony [View all]
Armstead
May 2014
OP
You want him to be honest about net neutrality in the same way he was honest about
Vattel
May 2014
#42
The one that pretends to be your friend is way more dangerous. You haven't earned your
GoneFishin
May 2014
#136
Speechifying is not always pointless, i.e, Hillary's $400,000 from Goldman Sachs
Divernan
May 2014
#31
Too bad they don't just go ahead and create a Banker Party and leave the Democratic party alone.
djean111
May 2014
#32
Yes, you are right. Just have to step back and count the deeds, not the words.
djean111
May 2014
#48
It's things like this that make me NOT want Clinton to be President. I don't think she's represented
DesertDiamond
May 2014
#102
Yup...even though we were assured that he would go Full Liberal after he didn't have to worry about.
truebrit71
May 2014
#11
Be patient. He's still cleaning up Dubya's mess. Things will be much better soon...
RufusTFirefly
May 2014
#13
Also "all options on the table for ACA," Monsanto exec. to head FDA, TPP, etc., etc., etc,
emsimon33
May 2014
#7
And if even one outrageous betrayal is beaten back because of the uproar....
RufusTFirefly
May 2014
#10
The internet has given me a strong sense of power that I have not had in many years. If he is fool
jwirr
May 2014
#14
This is the oft-used "hands are tied" argument. I like to call it the impotent president argument.
grahamhgreen
May 2014
#26
Precisly - his brain is multi-dimensional, unlike us mortals, yet he's been stymied.
grahamhgreen
May 2014
#143
I've been calling it the "helpless president" argument for about four years now--
Raksha
May 2014
#147
He is approaching his last two years. It should be a time for him to nail some things down.
silvershadow
May 2014
#16
I apologize for being angry...I'm so happy that Obama is giving the Interne to the highest bidder
Armstead
May 2014
#52
So what are we supposed to do? Just allow the Wealthy and Powerful to keep buying our government?
Armstead
May 2014
#90
It's one of many straws -- It IS possible to walk and chew gum at the same time
Armstead
May 2014
#51
yes I get carried away...and to be honest, I come to DU to vent when things piss me off
Armstead
May 2014
#93
Armstead, you are 100% right on. Protect net neutrality or forever be known as a Phony.
Enthusiast
May 2014
#25
Seems he waits for which direction the wind is blowing and then goes with it ... too much of this
RKP5637
May 2014
#28
One thing the Oligarchs (seperate from the President) dont want to do is piss off the
randys1
May 2014
#30
They wont take access away. Just make it more expensive and discriminatory based on $$$$
Armstead
May 2014
#55
Lawyerly evasive language: "in hopes that the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality"
KoKo
May 2014
#105
^^^ Unfortunately I must agree that it was evident from the beginning with the HC ...
slipslidingaway
May 2014
#58
Okay, I've read the entire thread and it's obvious, nobody on the thread has a fucking clue.
MohRokTah
May 2014
#57
No, we understand how it works. It's just that we want Barack Obama, the man most of us
totodeinhere
May 2014
#118
I remember those -- and all that modem telephone noise as they were setting up
Armstead
May 2014
#88
Yes a President bears a lot of the blame. 80% of what a Presdient can claim as their legacy comes
truedelphi
May 2014
#116
Thanks for the Post about this...And it's also true of "other positions" that Elected President
KoKo
May 2014
#144
Being from the UK, you obviously don't grasp the nuances of presidential appointments.
Divernan
May 2014
#149
You sound like you are anticipating the worst, first, and second, that you believe Obama
MADem
May 2014
#151
I dont disagree with you -- except to say this should have already been settled
Armstead
May 2014
#154
There will always be a tension between those who put the "public good"--as a pure and
MADem
May 2014
#155