there’s the stuff that threatens to demobilize her leftwing skeptics. After securing the nomination, Clinton sought to make peace with the Sandernistas by moving in the socialist senator’s direction on health care and higher education. But policy concessions only matter if the voters you’re hoping to win over trust you to pursue those policies. And, after Sanders spent much of the primary raising doubts about the sincerity of Clinton’s positions on trade and financial regulation, a portion of his base still distrusts the Democratic nominee.... NY MagAnd so there was some reaction from the left Bernie people. Still,
I think electing Hillary does give us a greater chance of building a progressive movement going forward!... J on FBOne of the disturbing issues from the Clinton support camp is that fear of Trump must trump any negative stories about Hillary. I think that if Hillary had released her speeches initially - like a year and a half ago - everything would have blown over. She's just lucky Trump is so awful. The NY Mag piece delves into some of the issues raised in the wikileaks of some content from her speeches on Wall St. One of the disturbing things about Hillary is her persistent poor judgement. Like you knew you were going to run for president and every action would be scrutinized. So sure go and make a half a million on speeches to Wall St -- and this even after the Occupy movement. She just didn't see a Bernie coming.
David Sirota did a lot of tweeting during the debate, while not for Trump he held Hillary's feet to the fire.
@davidsirota 5 hours ago
David SirotaMakes sense why Clinton refused to release the transcripts during the Democratic primary...David Sirota added,
M: you know what, I have a lot of friends on the left on fb- professors, writers, journalists, unionists, leftist organizations and every last one of them posts 5 anti-hillary articles for every 1 anti-trump. Its actually quite annoying and shows me why the left will remain on the fringes. A year ago did I think i would be left to defend Hillary on fb or over text, hell no, yeah i was a bernie supporter, but when a teacher, a union organizer, an American sees a threat we must do everything we possibly can do to stop that threat. Do you think any Hillary supporter has the blinders on? We all know just what type of political creature she is, neo-liberlism, corporate supporting, democrat at its worst. No one needs to read another article on what she says in her private emails or her speeches to know who she is or to be "devastated", but to dismiss this election is to fundamentally underestimate the power of the presidency and those appointments to SCOTUS.
J: Can't vote for Trump, but hell if i can vote for someone who is now on the record saying she'll cut corporate taxes and raise the age for SS to pay or it.
JC: I don't disagree. I will hold my nose and vote for HRC. But, still- facts. If Trump wasn't a monster, if she was running against nearly any other R, she would more than likely lose and this leak would have been a way bigger deal. (I would still have held my nose and voted for her against any R from the primary and I don't actually think the leaks from the transcripts are as bad as I thought they would be.... but there are things that are much worse-- Haiti and the Clinton Foundation, Honduras, Libya... the world is complicated... she is better than anyone for the system we have... but of course brother, we are ready for a different system entirely. How the %*+ that's going to happen I don't know, but hopefully this election is a gateway... I think electing Hillary does give us a greater chance of building a progressive movement going forward!) (I'll also remind you, you were arguing with me in the other direction about HRC not long ago fool😂!)
I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.
The key to both pieces of legislation was to be worked on quietly out of public view. And in the case of the budget deal, members of congress tell me that absolute secrecy — not just from the public but from the not-involved members themselves — was critical to success. The problem is that a public debate would necessarily have become an exercise in position-taking, which is antithetical to compromise. In private, members can admit that they care about some things more than others and find a way to reach an accommodation.
That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of ‘09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that’s an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let’s make sure that we do it right this time.
In April 2006, Goldman Sachs provided investors with a bullish report on Countrywide’s high-quality mortgage loans — loans the bank had helpfully packaged into AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities, thereby offering those lucky clients a low-risk way of profiting from America’s housing boom. When the bank’s head of “due diligence” saw the report, he typed a short email to his colleagues: “If only they knew…”
But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.
There’s nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.
Other, largely benign excerpts feature individual sentences that could have been damaging in a Democratic primary, like “I represented them [employees of the finance industry] and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper,” and we need “two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.”
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.
At the State Department we were attacked every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had. And that was true across the U.S. government. And we knew it was going on when I would go to China, or I would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on the plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier.
Horse-race considerations aside, do Clinton’s speeches give us any meaningful insight into how she would govern? Yglesias suggests not, arguing that Clinton’s private statements are far less important than her public ones:
Clinton can say whatever she wants to a private room of Brazilian bankers and it will in no way constrain her scope of action in the future. By contrast, when Clinton makes a public commitment to change the regulatory interpretations surrounding the Volcker Rule she is creating a real problem for herself if she doesn’t do it. Presidents usually make good faith efforts to implement their campaign promises, because politics is fundamentally a public undertaking. When you say you are going to do something, you probably have to try to do it and the more publicly and prominently you make the promise the harder it is to slip out of. Something said in private to Goldman Sachs is, by contrast, cheap talk.