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

[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.

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.

I agree w on the transcript unless it was really bad. I heard it included down playing left anti wall street populism which sounds reasonable but will be interpreted as wall street protection.

I suggest u read this article its nuanced. Talks about the Warren video.  http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/just-how-cozy-hillary-clinton-wall-street

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The more I think about it, the more I think Hillary might have had more success if she ran against Obama's legacy.

Let's face it: She's been pushed up against the wall by so-called "political revolutions" in both of her presidential runs... and she just doesn't really have the appeal to compete in that super-progressive lane. She knows it, which is why she's branding herself as a progressive who can get things done (in other words, Bernie can't). The thing is, there's a relatively popular perception that Obama also did not know how to get things done. I mean, he rode in on this wave of hope and change, and he did not meet most people's expectations; the zeal disappeared.

We have in Obama, then, an example of what we'd get in Bernie Sanders... except Obama at least sort of operated within the realm of possibility (his health care plan was, you know, achievable). I think Hillary would have more success if she was able to use the example of Obama's naivety and ineffectiveness to blunt Bernie's revolutionary appeal. She'd never convince the brainwashed, but even a lot of older people are flirting with supporting Bernie's campaign. And if they connected the dots between the letdown of Obama's eight years (relative to expectations) and what Bernie's presidency would look like, they might jump back to Team Hillary.

I know I'm showing my bias here, but Bernie is setting voters up for disappointment just like Obama did. If Hillary was able to praise Obama where he deserves praise but also call him out on failing to realize his "vision" for politics... it might help. She'd lose him as a potential aggressive surrogate though, so I guess that's something to weigh...

[Trapsy]

The more I think about it, the more I think Hillary might have had more success if she ran against Obama's legacy.

Let's face it: She's been pushed up against the wall by so-called "political revolutions" in both of her presidential runs... and she just doesn't really have the appeal to compete in that super-progressive lane. She knows it, which is why she's branding herself as a progressive who can get things done (in other words, Bernie can't). The thing is, there's a relatively popular perception that Obama also did not know how to get things done. I mean, he rode in on this wave of hope and change, and he did not meet most people's expectations; the zeal disappeared.

We have in Obama, then, an example of what we'd get in Bernie Sanders... except Obama at least sort of operated within the realm of possibility (his health care plan was, you know, achievable). I think Hillary would have more success if she was able to use the example of Obama's naivety and ineffectiveness to blunt Bernie's revolutionary appeal. She'd never convince the brainwashed, but even a lot of older people are flirting with supporting Bernie's campaign. And if they connected the dots between the letdown of Obama's eight years (relative to expectations) and what Bernie's presidency would look like, they might jump back to Team Hillary.

I know I'm showing my bias here, but Bernie is setting voters up for disappointment just like Obama did. If Hillary was able to praise Obama where he deserves praise but also call him out on failing to realize his "vision" for politics... it might help. She'd lose him as a potential aggressive surrogate though, so I guess that's something to weigh...

Obama's presidency is what Hillary campaigned on in 08. Even high up Obamacrats that now work for Hillary realize that. The problem is selling Hillary's type of change. As Ezra claims it has its merits but its a tough bitter sell to an electorate that wants radical change.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858464/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-political-realism

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Liz must be thrilled to have become a political football in the Sanders v. Clinton fight.

One of my Sanders supporting friends shared a video clip on Facebook as the "smoking gun" that Hillary was influenced by campaign donations. Liz gave an interview where she talked about how she gave a speech against a credit card reform bill being drawn up in Congress in 2000 and Bill Clinton initially sent positive signals to Congress and looked like he would sign it. First Lady Hillary Clinton heard of this and set up a private session with Liz to learn about why this bill was bad (in bankruptcy proceedings, it would have prioritized payments to creditors over child support and alimony), and Hillary used her influence to have Bill pocket veto it during the lame duck session after the 2000 elections.

Liz then goes on to say that when the bill came up in 2001, the new Senator Hillary then voted for it, and accused her of changing her mind because she was now the Senator from New York and represented financial companies. She basically insinuates that she was bought out by the big bad banks and credit card companies, even though the law failed to pass in 2001.

The video cuts out there, but the only problem was that Hillary voted for it because she had attached an amendment specifically prioritizing alimony/child support (her main concern) over creditor payments. When the bill came up in 2005 as the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, she did not support it because it was missing her amendment (Bill was hospitalized at the time of the vote, as well, so if you want to go the conspiracy theory route that she disowned it after it became an issue, there's your opening).

It originally was an issue in the 2008 primaries and was thoroughly discredited, but that hasn't stopped Sanders supporters from spreading edited videos to show what a corporate shill she apparently is. Even though her amendment was pointed out as the reason for her changed vote, they completely dropped the "changed vote" attack and then began saying it was a bad bill (apparently, saying "Yeah I took out debt, but Wall Street is Bad" is an acceptable excuse to void a contract you willingly signed, because who needs the rule of law and respect for contracts?).

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.

But but but WALL STREET IS BAD

[DrScholl]

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/

You don't know what the word misleading means. The title is exactly the same as the article and the article clearly states that Warren voiced support for Clinton's plan for Wall Street reform.

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

But let's not be naive. It's laughable to suggest that these are just Goldman Sachs employees who happen to think her foreign policy experience leaves her best qualified to be president. It's Wall Street executives steering boatloads of money into her campaign, SuperPACs and into her personal accounts via speaking engagements because they expect to be rewarded with access and influence when she's president. Pretty simple. The idea that donations are about buying access and influence in DC and that it works isn't exactly a controversial claim.