Today, it has just been reported off the wires, Hillary Clinton responded to Bernie Sanders attack that her integrity has been compromised by accepting Wall Street money : ” If you can’t drink their whiskey, screw their men, take their money and vote against them anyway, you don’t belong in office.” HILLARY CLINTON
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Please share widely!
. . . weak answer.
I’m sure Bernie is worried, now.
this is an LBJ quote from Robert Caro’s biography. At the time people laughed at the thought you could buy influence with Lyndon Johnson.
It got me to thinking. Nobel Prize economist, Paul Krugman, has closely examined the specific policy proposals of both Hillary and Bernie vis-à-vis Wall Street reform. And guess what ? Krugman says Clinton is TOUGHER than Sanders in reigning in the corruption of Wall Street through STRENGTHENING Dodd-Frank and the Volcker rule. He also notes that the Wall Street plutocrat class is spending millions to DEFEAT Clinton.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I believe that “endorsement” of her plan was from October, before Sanders released his plan and when he just talked in broad strokes and did not focus on shadow banking.
I have not seen a followup from Krugman on their respective Wall Street reform plans (he has poo-poo-ed the single payer plan recently) but please share it here if you have seen one.
The Washington Post tallied the various “supporters” of both candidates’ plans and they are strong on each side. That article also cites Krugman’s comments about Clinton’s being stronger on shadow banking, but I think if you really look at the record, it’s a big stretch to say that Krugman “has closely examined the specific policy proposals of both Hillary and Bernie vis-à-vis Wall Street reform” based on that one article in October, which came out before Sanders released his plan.
to Sanders’ platform for a long time. [See below]. Whereas the Bernie Bros have accused him of being a tool for Wall Street, etc., he and many people who disagree with Bernie’s positions are people who have held contrary views for a long time.
Krugman hasn’t made another detailed statement on Sanders financial plan, but on January 23, he wrote:
And yesterday,
Your “and yesterday” block quote above basically repeats itself in the third paragraph vis-a-vis the first two, almost verbatim. Was that a copying error?
Could Krugman have quoted himself?
. . . I remember Jesse Unruh being quoted saying something like that in Time Magazine probably in the late 1960’s. It probably is a much older saying. It’s some consolation–if you’re one of those activists who is in it to be consoled.
Is that what you call fabricating “quotes” and putting them in the mouths of public figures? You’ve done it before:
I can find no evidence that Churchill ever said anything like those words. Suppose you stop –as you said to someone else — making shit up?
why are they spending millions to DEFEAT her according to Krugman ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
A Republican who promises to undo Dodd-Frank would be much better for them so of course they’d like to defeat her. They likely prefer her immensely to Sanders. She stills receives huge numbers of donations from Wall Street.
They’re also spending millions to help elect Republicans.
They cover all their bases.
But they aren’t donating to Bernie, because Bernie’s the only one who won’t cover their bases.
Bernie has a chance.
They know Bernie wouldn’t take his money, otherwise he would have a very, very long time ago.
that too.
She delivered them a paid speech too; therefore she is in the tank for people who like to go camping! Honestly, the speeches for Goldman Sachs critique increasingly smells like concern trolling.
Answers like this make me want to go all caps like Fred. It’s not just the speeches that are the problem. It’s the speeches PLUS an incredibly lengthy record of things like this.
So, they are paying her directly and funding her campaign. Why would they keep giving her money if she aggressively worked against their interests?
It’s funny, Trump, in the first debate, laid all of this out on the table. He donated a lot to the Clintons and to many others because when he needed something, they would take the call and often help out. That’s why these people donate so much to campaigns. It’s not out of the goodness of their hearts, it’s out of their own self interest.
Given her actual record fighting for people her entire public career the example you cite above elicits a huge shoulder shrug from me. As has already been pointed out, however, Wall Street doesn’t want her and Krugman and others think her plan is actually tougher. Again, Sanders can say restore Glass-Steagal and everyone applauds. Maybe that is part of the solution, but Clinton’s approach is more comprehensive.
I wish people hated me in the same way Wall Street hates Clinton! Life would be great.
Also, can you cite a recent Krugman piece on their respective plans? He said her plan was stronger in October because Clinton had released a plan that addressed shadow banking and it was stronger than Bernie’s by default BECAUSE SANDERS HAD NOT RELEASED A PLAN for shadow banking. Sanders has since released a plan that addresses shadow banking as well as reinstating Glass-Steagal. I have not seen anything new from Krugman reevaluating the plans with the updated information. Krugman’s statement from October should hold no weight now. If you have seen something new from him on the Wall Street plans, please share it here. Also, there is no consensus among leading economists and financial experts that her plan is more comprehensive or stronger – see the tally of support for each side in this WaPo piece.
Her Wall Street fundraisers are direct proof that the “Wall Street doesn’t want her” meme is pretty hollow.
Also, this is THE fundamental problem with American politics.
Industry interests have almost entirely captured the political establishment. That is why they get what they want over what is best for this country. Clinton will not change that dynamic.
I should also note that Sanders is showing that it doesn’t have to be that way. He is neck and neck with Clinton on fundraising and getting basically zero support from corporate interests.
the comments.
I was responding to you above. I assume you’re scoffing at Christopher, not me.
Yes, this was meant for Christopher.
I accept that Krugman prefers a different approach, but his “endorsement” of Clinton’s plan over Sanders’s in October doesn’t hold water anymore.
where you get the basis for this statement. Is it Kenneth Thorpe?
I can’t\won’t defend Thorpe. I can’t be bothered learning enough to find out who’s right. As far as I’m concerned, his critics aren’t wrong.
I will defend Krugman, however. His support of Clinton has less to do with the details of Sanders’ plan than (as I said in previous comments) how change is effected. He sees Sanders’ plan as politically untenable. It just wouldn’t happen any time soon. Krugman would rather see Clinton, who’s more about incremental change, than Sanders who’s more about revolutionary change. He’d support Sanders, but things his proposals are out of step with reality.
Personally, I’m in the Krugman\Clinton camp, but I appreciate what Sanders has done and will do regardless of the outcome in the primaries. I strongly believe we need a vibrant left-wing in the Democratic Party. I think radically, but tend to act pragmatically and side with pragmatists. Unlike some people, I don’t think everyone should be or think like me. I understand that there are and should be people who think differently than I do. I don’t quite understand how to integrate these two parts of me, which are, two parts of our party, but I think about it a lot.
…arguing on your turf. The truth of the matter is I ultimately don’t care who gets how much money from which sources, nor should I get all worked up about the nuances on policy and plan differences. Nothing in either of those categories ultimately changes my hands down, number one reason for supporting Clinton – that she is the best prepared this cycle, and probably the best prepared non-incumbent POTUS or Veep in years for the office by a mile. I’m fairly certain Krugman still prefers Clinton, FWIW.
…I still absolutely stand by my previous diary entitled “The Progressive Case for Hillary Clinton.”
Well, at least you admit it. I don’t think there is a position with which I could disagree with someone more.
by accepting speaking fees after she served as Secretary of State OR later by accepting contributions to her campaign.
These are the facts.
” Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ALDOUS HUXLEY
Fred Rich LaRiccia
So?
I don’t see how that is at all relevant. Of course she did not break any laws. If she did, I would hope that Democrats would have more sense than to allow her to run for President. The problem is that she has taken millions in speaking fees and millions in donations from an industry that she is close to and has helped in many ways throughout her career. I take it that you and Christopher are ok with that as long as there isn’t an explicit and illegal pay to play deal. I am not, and I think most progressives are not.
Industry power in politics is the fundamental thing that underlies every other issue. It is the cancer. I think the Republicans are worse in many ways, but your precious Democratic party is also deeply infected (at every level).
I’ll call it what it is – it’s corruption. It’s not necessarily criminal corruption, but being paid handsomely and then helping those who paid in various ways, and in ways that are not in the best interests of the country or your constituents, is corruption.
I’ll use this too:
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ALDOUS HUXLEY
Name ONE, just ONE, instance where Senator Clinton or Secretary of State Clinton’s vote or policy decision was compromised by a contribution.
JUST ONE !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/17/hillary-clintons-explanation-for-controversial-bankruptcy-vote-joe-biden/
But [Moore’s] conclusion is that she sold out. After her defeat in the first Clinton term, he says, she fell silent on the issue. And “for her silence, Hillary was rewarded. And she has been the second-largest recipient in the Senate of healthcare industry contributions.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2007/06/michael-moore-hits-clinton-in-sicko-001716#ixzz3zKkDW44S
I suppose this could be described as evolution.
I actually prefer my candidates and elected officials to study the issue and come up with a nuanced, and possibly changed, position rather than simply echoing what the base wants to hear based on emotion. Save that game for the Republicans.
Nobody’s perfect. We don’t achieve anything by pretending she is.
JimC handled a few big ones. There’s also pushing fracking in other countries as Secretary of State.
Basically the everyone does this defense, which again, is something Trump and Bernie have exposed with their campaigns from totally different angles. The other defense being “I wasn’t planning on running for office” which is pure bullshit. She obviously was running for President prior to 2012, the emails prove that, and I doubt the reason Goldman paid 10 times the going rate for these kinds of speeches from ex-officials is because the knew she was going to run. I doubt they cared what she had to say about China, they wanted access and they bought it.
The irony is, I don’t believe for a second they bought her. I honestly think she knows how to play the system and enrich herself and her future using access and that insider skill is what arguably makes her more qualified to be Presidsnt than Sanders. Still, to do that knowing the optics and not have a good answer for it is akin to Jeb and his advisors assuming Iraq was off the table. Of course it looks bad and of course the media and her opponents are going to ask, and it’s an applause line for the GOP candidates too so don’t pretend Bernie and his supporters are the only folks that are going to brig this up. She has to get better on this stuff, which is why I’m glad we have a primary and finally have debates.
…is that I have long had zero patience for “it looks bad” or “it smells bad”. I insist that someone prove to me it actually IS bad.
If the overall political outcomes in favor of corporations over citizens while those corporate interests pour billions into donations and lobbying is not proof that something “actually IS bad,” I don’t know what will.
…she would emphatically argue that such is not her record. Besides these are always somewhat chicken and egg questions anyway. Maybe instead of a politician bending their positions toward the money the money supports politicians who already hold their positions. Plus there has to be a bit of leeway for anyone who represented NY since they are after all her constituents too.
And she should stop underestimating voter intelligence about the issue. I agree at the end of the day it didn’t influence their views as much as the critics insist it did, but it’s still a problematic response politically.
If anything I think she’s banking on voters in fact being smart enough to understand what’s really going on here.
Didn’t watch the debate last night.
Sanders talks about not running a negative campaign and doesn’t want to run an attack campaign. Clinton turned it around on him and said that he was attacking her integrity by innuendo. Called it an ‘artful attack’ or something like that. So Sanders got some push back, interested to see how he handles it and how people respond to it in NH. We know how they responded to Clinton showing emotion at that coffee shop in 2008.
I don’t think you can call what Sanders said an attack, every election you get that challenge to the front runner. The one getting the cash is the one being called out.
So the volley is back to Sanders now.
Yes, there were a couple of passionate exchanges, but it got nowhere close to Chuck Todd’s later comment that he wasn’t sure they would be able to shake hands at the end. They have stuck to the issues, and mostly keep to themselves unlike the GOP who both get more personal with each other AND attack the Dem candidates by name much more often. An interesting commentary about being on friendly turf came at the point where the candidates usually shake hands with the moderators, but instead both candidates exchanged a hug with Rachel Maddow.