“The media are very happy to have a race to cover where they feared - yes, feared - there would not be one. Corn’s concern doesn’t go away merely because Clinton has said nice things about banking reform.Barney Frank’s fourth point (according to joelgp) is this:Ĥ. (Her customary fee is $200,000 a speech.)Īnd David Corn, one should remember, is a “liberal” with establishment-media credentials. Hillary Clinton’s shift from declaimer of Big Finance shenanigans to collaborator with Goldman-the firm has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation-prompts an obvious question: Can the former secretary of state cultivate populist cred while hobnobbing with Goldman and pocketing money from it and other Wall Street firms? Last year, she gave two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs audiences. However, anyone can Google-search “ Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Connections” to find a number of discussions, most of which are summed up in David Corn’s concerned question here: She has spoken thoughtfully about further steps against abuses and in favor of taxing hedge funds at a fairer, i.e., higher, rate. Well before the Sanders candidacy began to draw attention, she spoke out promptly in criticism of the appropriations rider that responded to the big banks’ wish list on derivative trading. To support this argument, Frank then cites a couple of instances in which Hillary Clinton has said nice things about banking reform: “Without any substance, some argue that she has been insufficiently committed to economic and social reform - for example, that she is too close to Wall Street, and consequently soft on financial regulation, and unwilling to support higher taxation on the super-rich. That’s where a Bernie Sanders campaign may prove useful to us regardless of its ultimate outcome.We continue with the list:ģ. Pressuring politicians means offering to vote for other politicians if one doesn’t get what one wants. “I believe strongly that the most effective thing liberals and progressives can do to advance our public policy goals - on health care, immigration, financial regulation, reducing income inequality, completing the fight against anti-LGBT discrimination, protecting women’s autonomy in choices about reproduction and other critical matters on which the Democratic and Republican candidates for president will be sharply divided - is to help Clinton win our nomination early in the year.”įrank’s argument here may be correct - but with political issues upon which Clinton needs to be pressured, it probably isn’t. Joelgp’s excellent summary of Frank continues with a second argument:Ģ. Sometimes being able to organize one’s thoughts in disagreement with others makes one stronger. There remains the possibility that one or more of the Republicans may “strengthen their positions” through improved name recognition in the following months, or that Bernie Sanders may strengthen his position with Democrats.Hillary Clinton may, also, “strengthen her position” in debate with Bernie Sanders (and perhaps also in debate with Jim Webb and with whomever else decides to run for the Democratic Party nomination. “Strengthening one’s position” through more campaigning is a likely outcome if one is a candidate with little prior public name recognition - but that’s not the case with Hillary Clinton. This may be the case, or it might be otherwise. They are correct.”įrank’s assumption here is that Clinton will be “strengthening her position” from here to November. “believe boosting Sanders’ candidacy is their only way to prevent Clinton emerging as the nominee with broad support early in the process, strengthening her position in November.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |