RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Weissman writes: "Choosing Hillary comes down to giving the whole loaf to Wall Street while barely leaving crumbs for the rest of us. Except for the self-serving, where's the pragmatism in that?"

Hillary Clinton. (photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

How Hillary Tells Us She Won't Fight Wall Street

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

25 January 16


illary Clinton has a stronger, more detailed plan to regulate Wall Street than does Bernie Sanders, says the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman. But, adds journalist Ezra Klein, many are skeptical that she will do what she says.

“She has spoken out of both sides of her mouth on a number of issues,” agrees public banking campaigner Ellen Brown. “So it doesn’t seem like we can trust her.”

Between savants and skeptics, policy wonks and the politically wary, how can ordinary voters decide for themselves? It isn’t easy.

“Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake,” Krugman wrote. “But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from ‘shadow banks’ like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t.”

Krugman also finds that Wall Street prefers any Republican over either of the Democrats. Yet Wall Streeters are giving Hillary significant contributions, and their financial media does not view her as a major threat to their interests.

“As long as Hillary Clinton is in charge, they know that the Clintons historically have been enormously helpful to the banking industry,” explains former federal regulator William K. Black. “And in return the banking industry – not simply the banking industry, others as well – have made the Clintons very wealthy.”

No surprise, Hillary has little to say about her husband’s dealings with Wall Street, which will arguably define his place in history. I in no way hold Hillary accountable for the Big Dog’s transgressions, and certainly not for his carnal sins, which right-wingers delight in accusing her of enabling. But what does she think of his enabling Wall Street to bring the global economy to a thudding crash? How does she respond to Bill’s role in helping Wall Street gain such power and promote such glaring inequality?

Ask her. We need to know, and so far, her silence speaks volumes.

Remember that Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992 as an economic populist on a platform created largely by Robert Reich, who became his Secretary of Labor. But Bill brought in Robert Rubin, co-chair of Goldman Sachs, to serve first as his chief economic advisor and then as Secretary of the Treasury. The soft-spoken Rubin persuaded Clinton to pay off the budget deficit left to him by George H.W. Bush, a move that won Wall Street’s blessing and helped fuel the boom-and-bust prosperity of the 1990s. The alternative, as many people now understand, would have been to rebuild our already failing bridges, transportation systems, waterworks, and electrical grids.

Rubin also convinced Clinton to push Wall Street’s neo-liberal economics and its Washington Consensus worldwide, while making the North American Free Trade Agreement a top priority, without providing any safety net for American workers whose jobs went abroad.

But, most telling, Rubin and his understudy Larry Summers prevailed on Clinton to restrain financial regulators within the administration from doing their job, regulators like Bill Black and Brooksley Born, chair of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. (See her story at PBS Frontline.)

Clinton then went along with Texas senator Phil Gramm and the Republican-led Congress to massively deregulate financial markets, just as Rubin and his Wall Street friends wanted. Clinton fought for and signed the repeal of most of Glass-Steagall, the New Deal’s already porous wall between commercial and investment banking. Even worse, he fought for and signed the Commodities Future Modernization Act, which removed most federal regulation of credit default swaps and other over-the-counter-derivatives, the “financial weapons of mass destruction” that shadow banks like Lehman Brothers misused to bring down the global economy in 2008.

Enabling Wall Street in this way was Bill Clinton’s mortal sin, making him an accomplice to the economic crime of the century. He was a well-paid accomplice at that, “earning” some $250 million from going to work for the Wall Street mob after he left the Oval Office. Having shared royally in the pay-off, Hillary has never confronted either the economic crime or Bill’s complicity in it. Since she’s too smart – and too experienced – not to have seen them both, she’s telling us that she would be likely to do much the same.

Krugman misses this. The choice in the Democratic primaries, as he sees it, is between Bernie Sanders’ whole-loaf idealism, which Krugman calls self-indulgent, and Hillary’s half-a-loaf pragmatism, which he prefers. In reality, choosing Hillary comes down to giving the whole loaf to Wall Street while barely leaving crumbs for the rest of us. Except for the self-serving, where’s the pragmatism in that?

A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+76 # tswhiskers 2016-01-25 13:31
Thank you for once more explaining the Clintons' role in saving the big banks and refusing to keep them in any way from harming the economy. Bernie has time yet to unroll a plan to bring the big banks to heel, which he has said will involve breaking them up. Sounds good to me so far. Personally, I am far less skeptical of Bernie than of Hillary. GO BERNIE!
# Guest 2016-01-25 14:37
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
+20 # Henry 2016-01-25 15:07
Bernie Sanders / Issues / Reforming Wall Street
+64 # Farafalla 2016-01-25 15:07
You have to shout your message because it's actually bullshit. Bernie has already compromised. He is not agitating the working class to seize the "means of production". He wants reforms that are inherent in the New Deal. So I guess you would call Roosevelt a revolutionary.

Like all right wingers in the Dem Party, Hillary is your go to gal for a) a more deliberately reactionary foreign policy, b) a long leash for Wall Street, c) a dampening down of expectations. A true Clintonite always sees room to move to the right, never to the left.
# Guest 2016-01-25 15:19
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
+47 # Billsy 2016-01-25 16:56
Polls indicate otherwise and really you have no idea proof only a belief. Are you perhaps Debra wasserman Schultz ?
-1 # MidwestTom 2016-01-25 17:26
As of tonight you are obviously looking at the polls in two small early election states. The national polls still have HRC with a comfortable lead. I am not for HRC, but I also am a realist. Bernie's TV ads are super, but he has not yet seen serious attack ads, which he soon will. Bloomberg entering, if he does, may mess uno everything.

If it ends up Bernie vs. Trump vs. Bloomberg, I am not sure who would win. I suspect that there are a lot of people who will vote for Trump or Bernie simply because they are the head of the respective parties. However, add another reasonable person
and he (or she) may suck up the middle.
+19 # Radscal 2016-01-25 19:14
"If it ends up Bernie vs. Trump vs. Bloomberg, I am not sure who would win."

Two multi-billionai res vs. a FDR-style economic populist who correctly observes that billionaires are destroying the country? The billionaires would split the "conservative" votes making a singular Democratic nominee more likely to win.

Yes, partisans will generally vote for whatever candidate their party nominates. Hence, if Sanders gets the D nomination, those partisans will mostly vote for him. However, the many voters Sanders is motivating who generally refuse to vote for either party flavor will likely largely not vote for HRC.

Hence, if Sanders does continue to win over voters, I fully expect the DNC to bring in another "reasonable" candidate to try to siphon off Sanders supporters and nominate an establishment candidate.
+7 # economagic 2016-01-25 18:50
Absolutely. But what will she win -- for the 99 percent in this country or for humankind? With winners like that I'll take the losers!
+15 # wrknight 2016-01-25 15:51
Quoting NRESQ:
Oh, ye of little faith.
+20 # economagic 2016-01-25 18:49

We have been voting for "realists," aka "the lesser of two evils," for several decades now, and it has gotten us next to zilch other than more evil. Hillary might postpone the agony for a few years compared to Cruz or Trump (who would face the same sources of obstacles the current executive has, though probably slightly different obstacles). But the end point would very likely be the same, systems collapse at the global level. Global warning, along with the other two topics at the Triple Crisis Blog, is barely the tip of the iceberg, no pun intended.

The longer we delay positive action on ALL of those very visible crises (including the global financial system, also at Triple Crisis), the worse the "unwinding" will be. If you're going to be shot, it's better to be shot in the head than in the stomach. If you have a plan for us all not getting shot, by all means let us know, but HRC ain't it.
+7 # REDPILLED 2016-01-25 19:28
You confuse 'compromise' with co-optation.
+21 # jcdav 2016-01-25 19:35
Shouting just makes you look even more ignorant. Perhaps IF as Sanders says the people (remember them/us?) keep the pressure on congress we could accomplish many goals...frighte ned, status quo naysayers like yourself simply insure more of the same shafting of the middle class and wider economic inequality. GO BERNIE!
+14 # jcdav 2016-01-25 19:38
Oh, BTW the reality is that Sanders support is gaining momentum as more people learn about him and they are also seeing that HRC will SAY anything and deliver zero. Losing the potus is horrendous--HRC would constitute a loss.
+27 # lorenbliss 2016-01-25 21:42
Firstly, NRESQ, to assume Republican control of Congress would survive a Sanders landslide is faulty thinking. The historical likelihood is the Democrats would at least retake the Senate and might even overcome the Republican-impo sed barriers of malicious gerrymandering and racist voter-suppressi on to take back the House. (Yes I know the latter is unlikely, but the same was said of Sanders' candidacy.)

Secondly, the name of the party that controls Congress is ultimately meaningless. That's because the party labels are themselves Big Lies. The 21st Century truth is we are governed by one party of Ayn Rand fascists disguised by two names. Elect a Democrat, get a Republican. That's how we got Obama -- a white Republican who had maliciously disguised himself as a Black-souled Democrat.

Thirdly, given the genocidal reality implicit in my second point, absent a Sanders landslide, the identity of the victors makes no difference. I am 75 years old; since 2009, my sole source of income is Social Security. And in Washington state, where I now reside, it was savage cuts and program terminations enabled by Democrat legislators and signed into law by a Democrat governor that as of 1 January slashed my already inadequate income by $155 per month, which given its health care and dietary limitations is literally a death sentence. Such is the slow-motion genocide favored by both capitalist parties -- specifically to exterminate those of us who are no longer exploitable for profit.
+15 # lorenbliss 2016-01-25 21:49
By the way, NRESQ, you don't need to shout. I hear you loud and clear. But I must ask: is your screen-name perhaps an acronym, maybe for something like "Nameless Reactionaries Engineering Socioeconomic Quagmires"?
+3 # maverita 2016-01-26 07:12
+6 # RLF 2016-01-26 07:21
OOh! Hillary is compromised all right...very compromised!
+3 # pbbrodie 2016-01-26 10:59
It isn't necessary to scream at us in ALL CAPS in order to make your point. In fact, it is counter productive.
+45 # dkonstruction 2016-01-25 14:03
While I am a Sanders supporter and don't believe Hilary will do anything to reign in the banks (not to mention her hawkish military posturing) i think Sanders is being naive in believing (if he does) that bringing in a new Glass-Steagall or even breaking up the big banks is going to stop them and so i'm diappointed that he has not picked up on the public banking model being promoted by Ellen Brown (and others) mentioned at the beginning of this piece.

The "solution" isn't more regulation but rather completely separating all public monies (taxes and public pension funds) from the private banking industry. It's our money so it should be deposited into public banks and invested for public purposes not given over to private investment banks and hedge fund managers. If we take all public monies out of the private banks (and open up the post offices again to provide banking services) then we can simply tell the private banksters they can do whatever the hell they want with "their" money but this time if they gamble it away it's their problem.

So, yes, we should be supporting Sanders but not uncritically and we need to continue to push him where he needs pushing (like on military spending and support for the Israeli gov't) including on the need for public banking.
+31 # BobboMax 2016-01-25 15:17

While my heart agrees with you, my brain says the Big Banks are SO big that what they do will affect us all regardless of whose money they have, so I think we still need to regulate them very firmly, including jail time for offenders. Think 800 pound gorillas and see
+3 # dkonstruction 2016-01-26 10:54
Quoting BobboMax:

While my heart agrees with you, my brain says the Big Banks are SO big that what they do will affect us all regardless of whose money they have, so I think we still need to regulate them very firmly, including jail time for offenders. Think 800 pound gorillas and see

I agree that the private banksters still need to be regulated but i think it is delusional to believe we are ever going to be able to regulate them such that they "behave" themselves. But, the bigger question is where should public funds be deposited and who should control how they are invested? Public monies should be in publicly owned financial institutions and invested for public purposes.
+25 # turnoutthelights 2016-01-25 15:28
Enough with "Israel right or wrong." We must continue to confront the madness of the Natanyahu regime. It's dangerous to both Israel and the United States.
+7 # Cassandra2012 2016-01-25 15:33
'rein' in but otherwise yes!
+7 # economagic 2016-01-25 18:32
The simple problem with your solution is that if you are responsible for maintaining the security of multiple billions of dollars you have to put them somewhere. There are very few alternatives, and the ONLY one that is generally acceptable under law is the global financial system (formerly known as "the private banking industry").

The laws governing financial markets are far from my area of expertise, but there are some narrow exceptions that could serve to open some wider ones. One is public banking, which Ellen Brown certainly did not invent but for which she is the most outspoken advocate. (In a certain sense this country HAD a public bank of a certain sort for two periods in our early history, and another for a longer time within the US Postal Service, formerly "the Post Office.")

Another that I believe we should all be working for would allow the officials of pension funds in particular to invest at least a small portion of their holdings directly with local and regional businesses that are the core of local and regional economies and which are often starved for access to financial markets.
# Guest 2016-01-25 21:30
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
+1 # dkonstruction 2016-01-26 10:52
Quoting John De:
[quote name="dkonstruction"]
The "solution" isn't more regulation but rather completely separating all public monies (taxes and public pension funds) from the private banking industry.

To and pension fund monies aren't deposited in banks...just sayin'.

Yes, but they are deposited in privately owned financial institutions who decide how to invest the funds.

In addition, it means that whenever new money is created it is created via debt i.e., the gov't issues treasury bonds that pay interest to the banks and investors that buy them. The federal gov't has the ability to create money on its own that is debt free and this money too could be deposited into publicly owned banks (as well as community-based non-profit credit unions) and then the funds invested (profitably so "we" the public get a return on this investment) in projects that benefit the public e.g., development of affordable rental housing.
+15 # Inspired Citizen 2016-01-25 14:28
How Revolt Against Plutocracy tells Corporate Clinton we won't fight (or vote) for her.
+34 # seeuingoa 2016-01-25 15:16
OK! Elizabeth Warren.

Now is the time to endorse Bernie
so he can win big time.

Come on Elizabeth!
+12 # Inspired Citizen 2016-01-25 17:23
Petition Warren to endorse Bernie.
+16 # lorenbliss 2016-01-25 22:06
Warren will never endorse Sanders because she is a Hillary Clinton operative -- Warren's sole purpose the retention of the Democrat Party's (now totally false) image as a party of the Working Class.

That's why Sanders' candidacy is so important, and why his ultimate success is simultaneously so vital and yet so unlikely.

To prevail, he must win not one but three victories. The first is the election itself. Then he must reform a totally corrupted government that -- bureaucracy, judiciary and elected officials alike -- has been reduced to naught but the machinery of global-conquest capitalism (i.e., the uniquely USian form of Nazism). Lastly he must reform one of the two parties that gleefully collaborated in making the U.S. government the deliberate instrument of Evil it has become.

Helluva big job -- not one I'm certain any human being can accomplish.
+1 # virtualaudio 2016-01-28 16:00
We should know where Sen. Warren stands.
Does she believe her own talking points about Wall Street, the middle class, climate change, etc.?
Or has she turned 'neo-liberal' for whatever reason?
If the former, she should endorse Sanders; (she might also consider being his running mate were he to get the nomination.. hell, Sanders would have done half the hard campaign work by that point).
If she really supports Clinton, well, many people will lose whatever faith in the democratic process they have left (a big understatement) .
-12 # turnoutthelights 2016-01-25 15:22
Wiessman, you lost credibility when you injected Bill Clinton's sex life.
+30 # Art947 2016-01-25 15:33
Why is it that Prof. Krugman wants Sen. Sanders to offer a complete plan for bringing the banks and other elements of our financial markets back into compliance with the goals of a democratic society, while NO other candidate -- including HRC -- is required to do so?

While our presidential candidates can lay out the broad goals (and perhaps a few specifics) of their ideas for reforming the financial segment of our society, I would hope that each one understands that compromise will be necessary to enact the legislation. [Although we may still have to deal with the thugs on the Republican side who refuse to acknowledge that we are theoretically a democratic society!

Still, Sen. Sanders still is the most vociferous candidate for a populist revolution in this country to actually "take back America" for the 99%!
+15 # diamondmarge7 2016-01-25 15:41
Bravo to Weissman for blowing Krugman's rationale out of the water. To answer 'turnouttheligh ts,' Weissman is establishing the general lack of moral compass integral to both Clintons; that's why reference to Bill's sex life.
As a former Clinton supporter,I am entitled to say how glad I am to have Weissman as a truth-teller. The other pundits [our so-called 'experts,'] cannot see the forest for the trees.
The more I read, the clearer my own choice to back BERNIE becomes to me. Just as I saw, years ago, that going to war with/in Iraq was wrong-that Dubya/Cheney were great big fat liars, I see this again in Hillary. Being so close to power centers, these politicians and pundits must be blinded by the power afforded them? Is this what made Hillary vote for war? Or is she as confirmed a Hawk as were all in the Bush cabal?
Whatever the answer-while I am not claiming to be a seer, I choose to support BERNIE because his moral center is like a rock. I am tired of the nitpicky pundits, but I suppose they have to make a living--so many lines of print for so much cash?
Neither of the Clintons seem to have a strong moral center; may they fade into grandparenthood and leave the rest of us alone.
And while I have a platform here, may I urge BERNIE supporters to go to and to take the pledge? The pledge provides leverage to snatch the nomination from a self-interested liar and hawk, and empower a rock-solid moral man.
+21 # RMF 2016-01-25 15:48
A footnote to the de-regulatory binge is that it started in part with Wendy Gramm, none other than Sen. Phil Gramm's wife. She chaired the CFTC during HW Bush's presidency, and pushed through an administrative rule transferring swaps to the unregulated over-the-counte r market, thus de-regulating swaps from the on-exchange-onl y trading requirements otherwise required under the Commodity Exchange Act (where there are speculative position limits, reporting requirements, customer protection, and other regulatory measures, such as a prohibition on manipulation.) Upon winning the presidency, Bill Clinton appointed Brooksley Born as chair of CFTC, who ordered CFTC staff to take a look at the regulatory exemption granted swaps by Wendy Gramm, fearing that the free wheeling and unregulated OTC swaps market could bring down the economy and banking system along with it. As a consequence Greenspan, Rubin, and other financial regulators in the Clinton administration ganged up on Brooksley Born and forced her resignation. Then, fearing that some other "do-gooder" or activist CFTC chair (i.e., anyone who might believe even a little bit in regulation) would come along, and like Brooksly Born contemplate repealing the swaps exemption, then Sen. Phil Gramm and others in the Senate enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which Bill Clinton promptly signed. This cemented the OTC swaps exemption as federal law, removing it from under jurisdiction of any future CFTC chair.
+9 # economagic 2016-01-25 18:40
You are correct about the importance of Wendy Gramm in setting up the chain of dominoes that began to fall in 2007. The modern move to deregulate actually began under Carter, with airlines and then trucking. Some of the provisions of the Banking Act of 1933 (which included the Glass-Steagall provisions) had already been repealed in the 1970s.

Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty (a bastardized quote attributed to several sources).
+3 # sea7kenp 2016-01-26 04:38
Thanks, RMF for the info on Wendy Gramm. Now, I'm going to scare up a timeline on legislation in the Clinton administration, to see how much of it occurred, after the "Contract on America", enacted in 1995.
+3 # RMF 2016-01-26 14:20
The Gramm–Leach–Bli ley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was enacted in Nov 1999. There's that name again -- Phil Gramm, whose name appears on a bill then signed by Bill Clinton not long before leaving office. GLBA essentially repealed Glass–Steagall, and removed barriers preventing consolidation of banking companies with securities and insurance companies -- Glass-Steagall had prohibited any one institution from acting as a combination investment bank, commercial bank, and insurance company. So GLBA repealed Glass-Steagall and allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate, and at same time refused to give the SEC or other financial regulators any expanded authority to regulate large investment bank holding companies. The argument being that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was self-regulating , and banks own self-interest would rule out reckless conduct, or moral hazard as a by-product of deposit insurance.
+3 # RMF 2016-01-26 14:22
This was all triggered by Citibank's merger with Travelers Insurance in 1998, combining banking, securities and insurance, including Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers, all under one roof. This merger was a direct violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, but not a problem, as the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998, pending passage of GLBA, which was then adopted into law the following year.
+1 # RMF 2016-01-26 14:25
But part of the impetus for this legislative destruction of Glass-Steagall came from abroad, with expansion of large conglomerate banks in foreign economies. At the time, three or four of the 10 largest worldwide banks were Japanese -- names like Mitsubishi and Sumitomo. The US bankers feared they would be frozen out of some international banking opportunities, or heaven forbid, that the Japanese banks might out-compete them right here in the US, if they too (the US bankers) didn‘t have the right to expand without limit -- and a similar fear was voiced by securities interests, at NYSE and on Wall St, who viewed expanding stock and futures trading venues abroad, notably in London and Frankfurt, as a threat to NYSE and Wall St primacy.

Therefore, for all of the above reasons Gllas-Steagall had to go. The rest, as they say is history.
+7 # Akeel1701 2016-01-25 15:55
if I could vote, I'd not be stupid enough to vote for her
+23 # danireland46 2016-01-25 15:55
Several things to remember about HRC. She was a young Republican - worked on the Barry Goldwater campaign. She married wild Bill who was always a devious fellow but bright, ambitious and a democrat. She was bright enough to know he was a player, but represented advancement. In other words, she's used to compromise when it comes to constant gravy train advancement. That's what WS promises to her as well. The Clinton Foundation and WS perks have made them both rich. She's not abandoning either one on her way to the top. That's HRC.
-1 # RLF 2016-01-26 07:34
At that time a "Democrat" in the south was a Blue dog and not really a Democrat at all. Now all Democrats are Blue Dogs and should be put down!
+14 # wrknight 2016-01-25 16:02
Clinton had a lot to do with enabling Wall Street gambling, but let's not forget, he had a lot of help from Republicans and it was Reagan who started the ball rolling.

Now, having said that, is there anyone dumb enough to believe that Hillary will undo what her husband did? Does anyone think she will do that to spite her husband for his philandering? Or that she will do that out of the goodness of her heart?

For anyone dumb enough to believe that, I have some ocean front property for sale in Idaho.
-1 # Robbee 2016-01-25 16:02
RAP - issues its daily vote-GOP edict! - # Inspired Citizen 2016-01-25 14:28 "... tell Corporate Clinton we won't ... vote for her!"

here's what else citizen stands for - finally, citizen, at long last! thanks! outed RAP! - Republicans Against Progress! - says - # Inspired Citizen 2015-12-10 18:10 "It's going to be #BerrnieOrElse the GOP. That's RAP's promise!"

an opposing voice says - Daily Kos - The privileged idiocy of 'Just let the Republicans win’, Laurence Lewis, Sunday Dec 13, 2015 - “Whenever I hear a self-described progressive say that we ought to let the Republicans win the presidency and thus force the Democratic Party to adhere to "our principles," my first reaction is to assume that the person speaking is but another privileged idiot: White, male, young, doesn’t live paycheck to paycheck, doesn’t have to worry about whether he’ll be able to afford his medical bills or whether he’ll have a roof over his head next month …

"But privileged idiots apparently don’t remember recent history, and how well such petulance worked out in 2000, when some hoped suffering through a Bush presidency would fix the Democratic Party. And privileged idiots either don't understand or don't care to understand what real suffering is ..."

listen to bernie! DON'T pledge to, or write him, in! - go bernie!
-1 # Robbee 2016-01-25 16:11
she's BACK! same old GOP troll - # diamondmarge7 2016-01-25 15:41 "... I urge BERNIE supporters to ... take the pledge? The pledge provides leverage ..."

- about marge's self-defeating pledge to write-in bernie, says - # Scott Galindez 2015-10-20 10:28 “Its not leverage; threats backfire, especially empty ones. Bernie will not run as an independent."

- rsn is our own little laboratory of sexism, classism and delusions of grandeur in a boiling cauldron - thick with pledgers - those who hate lesser progressive hill so bad that they invite us to ignore her solid progressivism on women, unions, labor, tpp, blacks, voting rights and path to citizenship for illegal immigrants - more progressive than bernie on gun control - and, if hill wins the primaries, join them in writing-in bernie, voting 3rd party, or not at all - in other words to, in effect, not vote progressive! - instead vote into presidency a next deeper level of zomblican hell!

well, marge - if you collect enough progressives - turn them into your boiling cauldron of pointless gestures, privileged idiots and pointy heads - that makes you invite decent progressives to make your vicious pledge - you just may get the deeper level of zomblican hell your pledge prophesies! as scott galindez says - “Bernie needs enough delegates at that convention to win, not signers on a petition making an undemocratic threat.”

- listen to bernie! dump the undemocratic pledge to cancel our votes and elect the GOP! - go bernie!
-3 # Robbee 2016-01-25 16:40
to write-in bernie is to elect GOP! who here truly hates the rest of us progressives bad enough to throw away ALL our votes and elect a far worse successor to bush 2? RAP's is a pretty crummy excuse for threatening dems!

so full of themselves! - isn’t it sad how pledgers to write-in bernie CAN'T STAND WHAT BERNIE SAYS! we on the left have brownshirts of our own! itching for a fascist strong man! - to beat down dems they pick bernie! - # diamondmarge7 2016-01-24 11:53 "...take the pledge to write in BERNIE's name or to vote Green"

- pledgers are bernie's 2nd worst nightmare! after GOP! - # jsluka 2015-08-30 17:22 "I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Simple as that. It would be better for a Rethuglican to get elected, and bring on the revolution!”

- bernie caucuses with dems, votes with dems and runs for prez as dem, for good cause - e.g. in 2010 obamacare raised taxes on 1%; in 2012 OBAMA AND DEMS cut the capital gains loophole, that allows billionaires to pay much lower tax rates than their secretaries; in 2013, with dem support, obama ended bush 2's 2001 tax cuts for the rich - sure signs that dems fight the billionaire class!

my point, there will always be an excuse for making a vicious threat against dems "just to make things fair" but, undemocratic threats backfire! - it's an UGLY threat now, just to prod hill haters to elect a GOP prez! - these are UGLY souls - but just wait till they USE their "leverage" to try to rig the dem contest! that will be OBSCENE!
+7 # Radscal 2016-01-25 19:28
Thank you. Your rants against those who oppose the HRC plan to undermine the will of voters and steal the nomination through gaming the delegate system have convinced me to sign the pledge.

In my case, like I suspect is true of many who sign it, it's largely a symbolic action since here in CA, we are not able to either vote 3rd party or write in candidates in the general election. But the DNC needs to know that we oppose HRC's moves to override our votes.
+3 # EternalTruth 2016-01-26 00:03
In CA we are not able to vote 3rd party? Is this new? I voted Jill Stein in '12.
+4 # Radscal 2016-01-26 00:13
Yep. It's new. We voted for the "Open Primaries" Proposition, which was pushed as giving us "more free choice" in elections.

But it also required that only the top two vote-getters from the primary appear on the general election ballot, and there is no place for even a write in.

Democrats and "liberal" publications even encouraged us to vote for it because we might get two Democrats on the ballot to choose from.

2012 may be the last time you and I could vote for a 3rd party. If you recall, the 2014 ballot was this new format.

Now, some people claim this law doesn't apply to Presidential candidates, but I haven't seen definitive evidence this will be true.
0 # Robbee 2016-01-25 18:05
hill is no bernie! hill is no warren! hill lacks focus on critical factors to our great recession! and how to avoid another! - note -

Four Questions for Fed Chair Candidates
By Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, RSN, 12 August 13

2 ... would you work to break up "too-big-to-fai l” (banks)?

3 (Did) repeal of Glass-Steagall ... significantly contribute to the ... crisis?

- frankly, all hill is, is, in bernie's words, "infinitely better" than any GOP!

frankly, the badge that recommends hill vastly more than any GOP shill (to coin a word) is the fact that she proposed her comprehensive plan to regulate wall street "shadow banks", while a senator in 2006! some one and-a-half years before our great recession!

and, if her plan had been enacted and implemented then, hill's regs might have avoided our great recession! no small potatoes!

and, it contains big items, like whistle-blower protection! jailing crooks! and regulating swap derivatives i.e. funny business, that, i'm sure, bernie would endorse!

now, that said, i agree with bernie and warren that it is better to bust-up giant banks than impose higher credit requirements on them! to divest investment operations from banking ops!

- finally, back direct on point, name one GOP candidate who b-class bribers do not insist dismantle semi-effective dodd-frank? or fight to dereg banks?

i trust hill, only, not to FIGHT hard as a pure gop whore! to dereg our obscene banking sector! - go bernie!
+6 # sea7kenp 2016-01-26 04:51
If, heaven forbid, Hillary wins the Primary, I'll vote for her in the General. Why? Because the thought of "President Trump" or, worse, "President Cruz" scares me, half to death. Even Bernie Sanders said he would rather have Hillary for president, than any Republican.
+3 # Radscal 2016-01-26 16:33
I actually campaigned for Bill Clinton in '92. But when I saw what he actually did, even in the first 2 years where the Dems had clear majorities in both Houses of Congress, I became ashamed.

I didn't vote for another Dem President until Obama in 2008. Then, after seeing what he did, even in the first years when he had majorities in all of Congress, or at least the Senate, I felt like a fool.

The hundreds of thousands of brown-skinned people that the Obama Administration polices condemned to death haunt me.

I cannot be deliberately complicit in electing another murderous Wall Street sycophant. And HRC is the worst of that sort I've ever seen run for the Democratic nomination.
-7 # mblockhart 2016-01-25 19:51
After saying that he's not going to hold Hillary Clinton to account for Bill Clinton's conduct 2 decades ago, he proceeds to re litigate Bill Clinton actions in a different time and political climate. Bottom line is that today Hillary Clinton is best equipped to achieve some reform of Wall Street if, and only if, we can elect back more Democrats into the House and Senate. He also ignores one of her prime goals - to reduce big money control of our electoral process "if it takes an Amendment to do it." That is, arguably the core issue to deal with. She will be better able to do something about that too.
+3 # pbbrodie 2016-01-26 11:22
What in the world makes you believe any of this is true?
How do you explain, "Hillary Clinton is best equipped to achieve some reform of Wall Street." She isn't even very likely to try to achieve ANY reform of Wall Street!
Finally, in what way is Hillary Clinton better able to do anything about big money control of our electoral process?
Your entire post is a joke or satire, right?!
0 # dkonstruction 2016-01-26 10:58
Quoting John De:
[quote name="dkonstruction"]
The "solution" isn't more regulation but rather completely separating all public monies (taxes and public pension funds) from the private banking industry.

To and pension fund monies aren't deposited in banks...just sayin'.

where do you believe public monies are kept (whether it be public pension funds or taxes until they are spent)?
+4 # Vardoz 2016-01-26 12:57
I read early on in her campaign that Hillary accepted $200,000 to tell Wall St that it will be business as usual and I do not trust her plan or anything that she says. This is why we are voting for Bernie Sanders, this is why Robert Reich, Warren, Cornell West and many, many others are supporting Senator Sanders. I think Sanders has had plenty of experience in govt for a very long time and will put together a strong plan for Wall St with very good advisors. Hillary's track record is too pro Wall St, pro TPP and pro corporate to really change the game for the 99%.
+4 # Radscal 2016-01-26 16:45
Yep. She actually gave two of those speeches at Goldman Sachs, for a total of $400,000. She's gotten $ millions of dollars from Wall St. during this campaign, and the Clinton Foundation has gotten $ tens of millions of dollars (which are tax deductible "donations" which really means that we tax payers paid for those bribes).

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.