Sen. Elizabeth Warren shows support for Hillary Clinton's Wall Street plan

[DrScholl]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/elizabeth-warren-shows-support-for-hillary-clintons-wall-street-plan/?smid=tw-share&_r=0

While she stopped short of endorsing, this is quite helpful to Clinton in terms of being seen as serious about regulation.

[Ebsy]

Corporatist sell out!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Jfern trashing her as a tool of DWS and Soros in 3, 2, 1...

[Trapsy]

It won't matter if Hillary has a better policy plan to tackle wall street. Bernie still has more credibility on it because he hasnt taken speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. He isn't taking massive donations from Wall street. I am Hillary supporter so don't come at me.

[Maxwell]

WHAT A SHRILL BITCH

[Beet]

It won't matter if Hillary has a better policy plan to tackle wall street. Bernie still has more credibility on it because he hasnt taken speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. He isn't taking massive donations from Wall street. I am Hillary supporter so don't come at me.

Well, she can't exactly give back the money now, even if she wanted to it would look like a gimmick.

But it's worth pointing out that over 90% of those "Wall Street donations" are just donations from individuals who happen to work at a bank. So if Sally the teller donated $100 to her, it counts as a donation from Citigroup. And since Hillary was Senator from New York, a disproportionate number of her constituents worked in the financial industry. There aren't that many banks in Vermont.

Now I know that argument probably won't fly but it's worth putting out there.

[Trapsy]

It won't matter if Hillary has a better policy plan to tackle wall street. Bernie still has more credibility on it because he hasnt taken speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. He isn't taking massive donations from Wall street. I am Hillary supporter so don't come at me.

Well, she can't exactly give back the money now, even if she wanted to it would look like a gimmick.

But it's worth pointing out that over 90% of those "Wall Street donations" are just donations from individuals who happen to work at a bank. So if Sally the teller donated $100 to her, it counts as a donation from Citigroup. And since Hillary was Senator from New York, a disproportionate number of her constituents worked in the financial industry. There aren't that many banks in Vermont.

Now I know that argument probably won't fly but it's worth putting out there.

I agree. What people actually think is like Goldman Sachs the company gives Hillary $$ which is illegal.   The distrust w Wall street is interesting and justified but in other ways really frighting for the future. It was really dumb move for her for doing those speaking fees just a bad political move. Barbara Boxer explains it best.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barbara-boxer-hillary-clinton-speaking-fees_us_56b271e4e4b08069c7a5ef50

[Shadows]

This is actually a misleading title. After praising Sanders multiple times, she was forced to give a positive word for Clinton in an effort to her support.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_elizabeth_warren_anyone_who_says_change_hard_billionaires_20160125

VIDEO: Elizabeth Warren: Anyone Who Says ‘Change Is Just Too Hard’ Is in ‘Bed With the Billionaires’

Posted on Jan 25, 2016

The Massachusetts senator’s fiery speech on the Senate floor Friday echoed some of Bernie Sanders’ powerful criticisms of Hillary Clinton. Although Warren hasn’t endorsed any of the Democratic candidates (and is in fact the only female senator not to have endorsed Clinton), that hasn’t stopped speculation.

A new presidential election is upon us. The first votes will be cast in Iowa in just eleven days. Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run this country like some private club.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_elizabeth_warren_anyone_who_says_change_hard_billionaires_20160125

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-sinks-clintons-hopes_b_9058526.html?section=india

Sen. Elizabeth Warren appears to be feeling the Bern today, even though she’s not endorsing anyone yet for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Massachusetts Democrat and progressive darling heaped praise on Sen. Bernie Sanders following a fiery speech he gave Tuesday on the need for Wall Street reform.


Then, walking a fine line, she tweeted later in the morning that she’s glad “ALL the Dem candidates for president…are fighting for Wall St reform.”


Wall Street reform is a signature issue for Warren, a consumer protection advocate who proposed and helped establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in response to the 2008 financial crisis.

"We need to level the playing field and end too big to fail," she wrote in her series of tweets.

On Tuesday, Sanders called for breaking up the biggest banks and reinstating the Glass-Steagall financial law that separated commercial and investment banking activities.

Sanders has co-sponsored Warren’s Glass-Steagall legislation while his rival, Hillary Clinton, has not endorsed that approach. Clinton says her plan is tougher because it addresses risk in the shadow banking sector.


Last month, Warren shared on social media Clinton’s Op-Ed article in the New York Times about her Wall Street reform proposals and wrote in a Facebook post that Clinton was right to fight back

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/06/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-wall-street/78363344/

[Trapsy]

This is actually a misleading title. After praising Sanders multiple times, she was forced to give a positive word for Clinton in an effort to her support.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_elizabeth_warren_anyone_who_says_change_hard_billionaires_20160125

VIDEO: Elizabeth Warren: Anyone Who Says ‘Change Is Just Too Hard’ Is in ‘Bed With the Billionaires’

Posted on Jan 25, 2016

The Massachusetts senator’s fiery speech on the Senate floor Friday echoed some of Bernie Sanders’ powerful criticisms of Hillary Clinton. Although Warren hasn’t endorsed any of the Democratic candidates (and is in fact the only female senator not to have endorsed Clinton), that hasn’t stopped speculation.

A new presidential election is upon us. The first votes will be cast in Iowa in just eleven days. Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run this country like some private club.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_elizabeth_warren_anyone_who_says_change_hard_billionaires_20160125

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-sinks-clintons-hopes_b_9058526.html?section=india

Sen. Elizabeth Warren appears to be feeling the Bern today, even though she’s not endorsing anyone yet for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Massachusetts Democrat and progressive darling heaped praise on Sen. Bernie Sanders following a fiery speech he gave Tuesday on the need for Wall Street reform.


Then, walking a fine line, she tweeted later in the morning that she’s glad “ALL the Dem candidates for president…are fighting for Wall St reform.”


Wall Street reform is a signature issue for Warren, a consumer protection advocate who proposed and helped establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in response to the 2008 financial crisis.

"We need to level the playing field and end too big to fail," she wrote in her series of tweets.

On Tuesday, Sanders called for breaking up the biggest banks and reinstating the Glass-Steagall financial law that separated commercial and investment banking activities.

Sanders has co-sponsored Warren’s Glass-Steagall legislation while his rival, Hillary Clinton, has not endorsed that approach. Clinton says her plan is tougher because it addresses risk in the shadow banking sector.


Last month, Warren shared on social media Clinton’s Op-Ed article in the New York Times about her Wall Street reform proposals and wrote in a Facebook post that Clinton was right to fight back

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/06/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-wall-street/78363344/

Chill. Nobody said Warren is smoking doobies with Hillary.

[Shadows]

Clinton, Warren Still at Odds on Banking Policy
Warren continues to make the case for reinstating Glass-Steagall provisions separating commercial and investment banking.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/92073/clinton-warren-still-odds-banking-policy

In an interview with International Business Times hours before Wednesday night’s Democratic town hall in New Hampshire, the Massachusetts senator — whose endorsement is coveted by both Democratic candidates — slammed Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein for asserting earlier in the day that Sanders’ criticism of Wall Street had created a dangerous environment in America.

"He thinks it’s fine to prosecute small business owners, it’s fine to go hard after individuals who have no real resources, but don’t criticize companies like Goldman Sachs and their very, very important CEO — that’s what he’s really saying,” Warren told IBT.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/election-2016-elizabeth-warren-defends-bernie-sanders-goldman-sachs-criticism

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It won't matter if Hillary has a better policy plan to tackle wall street. Bernie still has more credibility on it because he hasnt taken speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. He isn't taking massive donations from Wall street. I am Hillary supporter so don't come at me.

Well, she can't exactly give back the money now, even if she wanted to it would look like a gimmick.

But it's worth pointing out that over 90% of those "Wall Street donations" are just donations from individuals who happen to work at a bank. So if Sally the teller donated $100 to her, it counts as a donation from Citigroup. And since Hillary was Senator from New York, a disproportionate number of her constituents worked in the financial industry. There aren't that many banks in Vermont.

Now I know that argument probably won't fly but it's worth putting out there.

I agree. What people actually think is like Goldman Sachs the company gives Hillary $$ which is illegal.   The distrust w Wall street is interesting and justified but in other ways really frighting for the future. It was really dumb move for her for doing those speaking fees just a bad political move. Barbara Boxer explains it best.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barbara-boxer-hillary-clinton-speaking-fees_us_56b271e4e4b08069c7a5ef50

So who did pay her for her speeches to Goldman Sachs, then?

[Shadows]

This is actually a misleading title. After praising Sanders multiple times, she was forced to give a positive word for Clinton in an effort to her support.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_elizabeth_warren_anyone_who_says_change_hard_billionaires_20160125

VIDEO: Elizabeth Warren: Anyone Who Says ‘Change Is Just Too Hard’ Is in ‘Bed With the Billionaires’

Posted on Jan 25, 2016

The Massachusetts senator’s fiery speech on the Senate floor Friday echoed some of Bernie Sanders’ powerful criticisms of Hillary Clinton. Although Warren hasn’t endorsed any of the Democratic candidates (and is in fact the only female senator not to have endorsed Clinton), that hasn’t stopped speculation.

A new presidential election is upon us. The first votes will be cast in Iowa in just eleven days. Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run this country like some private club.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_elizabeth_warren_anyone_who_says_change_hard_billionaires_20160125

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-sinks-clintons-hopes_b_9058526.html?section=india

Sen. Elizabeth Warren appears to be feeling the Bern today, even though she’s not endorsing anyone yet for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Massachusetts Democrat and progressive darling heaped praise on Sen. Bernie Sanders following a fiery speech he gave Tuesday on the need for Wall Street reform.


Then, walking a fine line, she tweeted later in the morning that she’s glad “ALL the Dem candidates for president…are fighting for Wall St reform.”


Wall Street reform is a signature issue for Warren, a consumer protection advocate who proposed and helped establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in response to the 2008 financial crisis.

"We need to level the playing field and end too big to fail," she wrote in her series of tweets.

On Tuesday, Sanders called for breaking up the biggest banks and reinstating the Glass-Steagall financial law that separated commercial and investment banking activities.

Sanders has co-sponsored Warren’s Glass-Steagall legislation while his rival, Hillary Clinton, has not endorsed that approach. Clinton says her plan is tougher because it addresses risk in the shadow banking sector.


Last month, Warren shared on social media Clinton’s Op-Ed article in the New York Times about her Wall Street reform proposals and wrote in a Facebook post that Clinton was right to fight back

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/06/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-wall-street/78363344/

Chill. Nobody said Warren is smoking doobies with Hillary.

People picking old 2 month quotes, 1 positive comment Warren made about Hillary after many negatives are morally bankrupt & attempt to project a wrong picture.

Warren said before Iowa - "Anyone who things change is too difficult has crawled in bed with Billionaires"

After that she gave multiple speeches about how Congress is bought & everyone is accepting money from Wall Street & doing their bidding.

After that he defended Bernie from Goldman CEO. Before that he supported Bernie's ideas about Wall Street publicly many times & so on. She is the only female senator to not endorse Clinton amidst intense pressure.

[Trapsy]

It won't matter if Hillary has a better policy plan to tackle wall street. Bernie still has more credibility on it because he hasnt taken speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. He isn't taking massive donations from Wall street. I am Hillary supporter so don't come at me.

Well, she can't exactly give back the money now, even if she wanted to it would look like a gimmick.

But it's worth pointing out that over 90% of those "Wall Street donations" are just donations from individuals who happen to work at a bank. So if Sally the teller donated $100 to her, it counts as a donation from Citigroup. And since Hillary was Senator from New York, a disproportionate number of her constituents worked in the financial industry. There aren't that many banks in Vermont.

Now I know that argument probably won't fly but it's worth putting out there.

I agree. What people actually think is like Goldman Sachs the company gives Hillary $$ which is illegal.   The distrust w Wall street is interesting and justified but in other ways really frighting for the future. It was really dumb move for her for doing those speaking fees just a bad political move. Barbara Boxer explains it best.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barbara-boxer-hillary-clinton-speaking-fees_us_56b271e4e4b08069c7a5ef50

So who did pay her for her speeches to Goldman Sachs, then?

donations donations donations donations.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It won't matter if Hillary has a better policy plan to tackle wall street. Bernie still has more credibility on it because he hasnt taken speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. He isn't taking massive donations from Wall street. I am Hillary supporter so don't come at me.

Well, she can't exactly give back the money now, even if she wanted to it would look like a gimmick.

But it's worth pointing out that over 90% of those "Wall Street donations" are just donations from individuals who happen to work at a bank. So if Sally the teller donated $100 to her, it counts as a donation from Citigroup. And since Hillary was Senator from New York, a disproportionate number of her constituents worked in the financial industry. There aren't that many banks in Vermont.

Now I know that argument probably won't fly but it's worth putting out there.

I agree. What people actually think is like Goldman Sachs the company gives Hillary $$ which is illegal.   The distrust w Wall street is interesting and justified but in other ways really frighting for the future. It was really dumb move for her for doing those speaking fees just a bad political move. Barbara Boxer explains it best.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barbara-boxer-hillary-clinton-speaking-fees_us_56b271e4e4b08069c7a5ef50

So who did pay her for her speeches to Goldman Sachs, then?

donations donations donations donations.

So, "donations" and "appearance fees" are identical terms? Somehow, I don't think so...

[Trapsy]

It won't matter if Hillary has a better policy plan to tackle wall street. Bernie still has more credibility on it because he hasnt taken speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. He isn't taking massive donations from Wall street. I am Hillary supporter so don't come at me.

Well, she can't exactly give back the money now, even if she wanted to it would look like a gimmick.

But it's worth pointing out that over 90% of those "Wall Street donations" are just donations from individuals who happen to work at a bank. So if Sally the teller donated $100 to her, it counts as a donation from Citigroup. And since Hillary was Senator from New York, a disproportionate number of her constituents worked in the financial industry. There aren't that many banks in Vermont.

Now I know that argument probably won't fly but it's worth putting out there.

I agree. What people actually think is like Goldman Sachs the company gives Hillary $$ which is illegal.   The distrust w Wall street is interesting and justified but in other ways really frighting for the future. It was really dumb move for her for doing those speaking fees just a bad political move. Barbara Boxer explains it best.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barbara-boxer-hillary-clinton-speaking-fees_us_56b271e4e4b08069c7a5ef50

So who did pay her for her speeches to Goldman Sachs, then?

donations donations donations donations.

So, "donations" and "appearance fees" are identical terms? Somehow, I don't think so...

My fault let me clarify. Hillary got speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. What was I was talking about was the indiv donations that get framed as Companies donating directly to Hillary when its just indivs who just work under those companies.

[Beet]

Glass Steagall is the reason Lehman Bros. collapsed.

Without Glass Steagall, its operations would have been the branch of a bank holding company like Bank of America. The Federal Reserve would then have been authorized to come to the rescue. A rescue at that point would have been much cheaper than the multiple rescues that were later required after Lehman's failure. All the investment banks converted to bank holding companies after Lehman for a reason.

The point is, risky lending is risky lending no matter how you splice and dice it. Clinton's plan is better because it goes after the behavior itself.

[Trapsy]

It won't matter if Hillary has a better policy plan to tackle wall street. Bernie still has more credibility on it because he hasnt taken speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. He isn't taking massive donations from Wall street. I am Hillary supporter so don't come at me.

Well, she can't exactly give back the money now, even if she wanted to it would look like a gimmick.

But it's worth pointing out that over 90% of those "Wall Street donations" are just donations from individuals who happen to work at a bank. So if Sally the teller donated $100 to her, it counts as a donation from Citigroup. And since Hillary was Senator from New York, a disproportionate number of her constituents worked in the financial industry. There aren't that many banks in Vermont.

Now I know that argument probably won't fly but it's worth putting out there.

I agree. What people actually think is like Goldman Sachs the company gives Hillary $$ which is illegal.   The distrust w Wall street is interesting and justified but in other ways really frighting for the future. It was really dumb move for her for doing those speaking fees just a bad political move. Barbara Boxer explains it best.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barbara-boxer-hillary-clinton-speaking-fees_us_56b271e4e4b08069c7a5ef50

So who did pay her for her speeches to Goldman Sachs, then?

donations donations donations donations.

So, "donations" and "appearance fees" are identical terms? Somehow, I don't think so...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/6/1409515/-Setting-the-Record-Straight-Hillary-Clinton-s-Campaign-Donors

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It won't matter if Hillary has a better policy plan to tackle wall street. Bernie still has more credibility on it because he hasnt taken speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. He isn't taking massive donations from Wall street. I am Hillary supporter so don't come at me.

Well, she can't exactly give back the money now, even if she wanted to it would look like a gimmick.

But it's worth pointing out that over 90% of those "Wall Street donations" are just donations from individuals who happen to work at a bank. So if Sally the teller donated $100 to her, it counts as a donation from Citigroup. And since Hillary was Senator from New York, a disproportionate number of her constituents worked in the financial industry. There aren't that many banks in Vermont.

Now I know that argument probably won't fly but it's worth putting out there.

I agree. What people actually think is like Goldman Sachs the company gives Hillary $$ which is illegal.   The distrust w Wall street is interesting and justified but in other ways really frighting for the future. It was really dumb move for her for doing those speaking fees just a bad political move. Barbara Boxer explains it best.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barbara-boxer-hillary-clinton-speaking-fees_us_56b271e4e4b08069c7a5ef50

So who did pay her for her speeches to Goldman Sachs, then?

donations donations donations donations.

So, "donations" and "appearance fees" are identical terms? Somehow, I don't think so...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/6/1409515/-Setting-the-Record-Straight-Hillary-Clinton-s-Campaign-Donors

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's going to help Sec. Clinton's campaign, even if effectively conveyed to every possible Democratic primary voter on the planet.

This election has an atmosphere where "the banks" and "the one percent" are widely viewed as enemies of the public. Claiming, "oh, no, the banks didn't give my campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars, that was just the people who work for them" is unlikely to prove an effective rejoinder, no matter how technically true it is. Add it to hundreds of thousands more from said banks in paid speaking fees for "secret" speeches and it looks damning.

Hillary Clinton's campaign may be able to plow through to the nomination anyway, but this is not going to help her chances in either the nomination or the general.

[Shadows]

Players you should know

To start with, here are the names you need to know and how they fit under our current campaign finance system.2

Ready for Hillary PAC (hybrid super PAC)
Ready PAC (hybrid super PAC, formerly Ready for Hillary)
Hillary for America (candidate PAC)
Priorities USA Action (super PAC)
Correct the Record (super PAC)
American Bridge 21st Century (super PAC)
American Bridge 21st Century Foundation (501(c)(4))
American Independent Institute (501(c)(4))
Media Matters (501(c)(3))
The Bonner Group

Millions Raised and Spent So Far

1
Hillary Clinton
TOTAL RAISED
IN MILLIONS $163.5
CANDIDATE
RAISED $115.6
SPENT $77.6
CASH ON HAND $38.0
SUPER PACS & OTHER PACS
RAISED $47.9
SPENT $12.6
CASH ON HAND $36.2
OTHER GROUPS
RAISED


Ofcourse it is very easy to put 1 side of the story & mis-represent the issue. Very clever issue done by unethical Hillary hacks

Look at the Super Pac Numbers - She has raised 50M$ already from the Super Pac & around 15M has come from Wall Street out of that.

Very clever tactic - Wall Street to give 4-5M$ to official Hillary account & make it look small & route 15M$ through a Super pac.

This is probably Ready for Hillary. She has so many Super pacs, it's unreal what the real numbers are

[Landslide Lyndon]

I doubt that Clinton's Republican opponent in the general will hit her on being too cozy with the banks. These guys have all pledged to repeal Dodd-Frank after all.
It will be like hitting her for being too cozy with the pro-life movement.

[Maxwell]

I doubt that Clinton's Republican opponent in the general will hit her on being too cozy with the banks. These guys have all pledged to repeal Dodd-Frank.

I think TRUMP would.

[Shadows]

I doubt that Clinton's Republican opponent in the general will hit her on being too cozy with the banks. These guys have all pledged to repeal Dodd-Frank after all.
It will be like hitting her for being too cozy with the pro-life movement.

Trump will destroy her, he is self funding his own campaign. He can easily pledge to repeal the Dodd Frank & anything to get elected. This is Hillary's weak spot & he will destroy her.

[Trapsy]

It won't matter if Hillary has a better policy plan to tackle wall street. Bernie still has more credibility on it because he hasnt taken speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. He isn't taking massive donations from Wall street. I am Hillary supporter so don't come at me.

Well, she can't exactly give back the money now, even if she wanted to it would look like a gimmick.

But it's worth pointing out that over 90% of those "Wall Street donations" are just donations from individuals who happen to work at a bank. So if Sally the teller donated $100 to her, it counts as a donation from Citigroup. And since Hillary was Senator from New York, a disproportionate number of her constituents worked in the financial industry. There aren't that many banks in Vermont.

Now I know that argument probably won't fly but it's worth putting out there.

I agree. What people actually think is like Goldman Sachs the company gives Hillary $$ which is illegal.   The distrust w Wall street is interesting and justified but in other ways really frighting for the future. It was really dumb move for her for doing those speaking fees just a bad political move. Barbara Boxer explains it best.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barbara-boxer-hillary-clinton-speaking-fees_us_56b271e4e4b08069c7a5ef50

So who did pay her for her speeches to Goldman Sachs, then?

donations donations donations donations.

So, "donations" and "appearance fees" are identical terms? Somehow, I don't think so...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/6/1409515/-Setting-the-Record-Straight-Hillary-Clinton-s-Campaign-Donors

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's going to help Sec. Clinton's campaign, even if effectively conveyed to every possible Democratic primary voter on the planet.

This election has an atmosphere where "the banks" and "the one percent" are widely viewed as enemies of the public. Claiming, "oh, no, the banks didn't give my campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars, that was just the people who work for them" is unlikely to prove an effective rejoinder, no matter how technically true it is. Add it to hundreds of thousands more from said banks in paid speaking fees for "secret" speeches and it looks damning.

Hillary Clinton's campaign may be able to plow through to the nomination anyway, but this is not going to help her chances in either the nomination or the general.

I agree w you deeply. Nobody really cares about the details. You take donations from wall street you have already been compromised. This is why Bernie has more credibility despite of details. He has intentions of going after wall street execs in ways Hillary & Obama do not.

[Shadows]

It won't matter if Hillary has a better policy plan to tackle wall street. Bernie still has more credibility on it because he hasnt taken speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. He isn't taking massive donations from Wall street. I am Hillary supporter so don't come at me.

Well, she can't exactly give back the money now, even if she wanted to it would look like a gimmick.

But it's worth pointing out that over 90% of those "Wall Street donations" are just donations from individuals who happen to work at a bank. So if Sally the teller donated $100 to her, it counts as a donation from Citigroup. And since Hillary was Senator from New York, a disproportionate number of her constituents worked in the financial industry. There aren't that many banks in Vermont.

Now I know that argument probably won't fly but it's worth putting out there.

I agree. What people actually think is like Goldman Sachs the company gives Hillary $$ which is illegal.   The distrust w Wall street is interesting and justified but in other ways really frighting for the future. It was really dumb move for her for doing those speaking fees just a bad political move. Barbara Boxer explains it best.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barbara-boxer-hillary-clinton-speaking-fees_us_56b271e4e4b08069c7a5ef50

So who did pay her for her speeches to Goldman Sachs, then?

donations donations donations donations.

So, "donations" and "appearance fees" are identical terms? Somehow, I don't think so...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/6/1409515/-Setting-the-Record-Straight-Hillary-Clinton-s-Campaign-Donors

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's going to help Sec. Clinton's campaign, even if effectively conveyed to every possible Democratic primary voter on the planet.

This election has an atmosphere where "the banks" and "the one percent" are widely viewed as enemies of the public. Claiming, "oh, no, the banks didn't give my campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars, that was just the people who work for them" is unlikely to prove an effective rejoinder, no matter how technically true it is. Add it to hundreds of thousands more from said banks in paid speaking fees for "secret" speeches and it looks damning.

Hillary Clinton's campaign may be able to plow through to the nomination anyway, but this is not going to help her chances in either the nomination or the general.

I agree w you deeply. Nobody really cares about the details. You take donations from wall street you have already been compromised. This is why Bernie has more credibility despite of details. He has intentions of going after wall street execs in ways Hillary & Obama do not.

I don't feel this would help but if she wants credibility she should disband her Super pac raising 50M$ from Corporates, lobbyists & 15m$ plus from Wall Street.

She should also publish the transcript of her paid speeches in the last 2 years. I think these 2 steps will help her in increasing credibility. You can't expect to get Millions of Dollars from Superpacs & Wall Street people & then claim to be a messiah.

This thing will get really worse with the Warren Video out.

[IceSpear]

Uh oh, we knew this was coming... poor Liz is gonna get thrown under the bus as a far right corporatist shill. By the very people who in early 2015 were donning "Ready for Warren" bumper stickers and saw Saint Bernard as nothing more than a fringe distraction.