And then in October CNN reported that Clinton said she won’t reinstate Glass-Seagall – saying also that she would do something “more comprehensive,” but that sounds to me like jam tomorrow.
Davenport, Iowa (CNN) Hillary Clinton on Tuesday dismissed the idea of reinstating a Depression-era banking law that has found champions in two of her Democratic opponents, setting up what will likely be a flashpoint in next week’s Democratic primary debate.
Asked by a voter in Iowa about reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, a law that separated commercial and investment banks until its repeal under President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton said that her Wall Street plan — which will be unveiled next week — would be “more comprehensive” than reinstating the law.
A couple of days later CNN reported that the banks were much relieved – which tells us how shitty her plan must be.
Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Street’s excesses on Thursday. The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief.
While Clinton proposes some harsher regulations, she stops far short of what more populist Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want to do to Wall Street.
How populist do you really have to be to think the bankers shouldn’t be in charge of the economy?
Sanders and Warren think the big banks should be broken up. Clinton does not. It’s a big divide in the Democratic party.
“We continue to believe Clinton would be one of the better candidates for financial firms,” wrote Jaret Seiberg of Guggenheim Partners in a note to clients analyzing her plan.
And so one of the worse for everyone else.
Comments
10 responses to “One of the better candidates for financial firms”
I just have to shake my head at Clinton’s willing blindness on this issue. Has she not been following the news since 2007?
I’m a Democrat, but it’s hard to feel good about it. Obama and Clinton seem to have this attitude that they can kick their supporters to the curb because what are we going to do, vote Republican?
For what it’s worth, Krugman argues that the Dodd-Frank financial reforms are better than nothing, and have made a real difference. See: Half A Loaf, Financial Reform Edition http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/half-a-loaf-financial-reform-edition/
This is why I would rather have the semi-socialist white old man in office than our first female president.
This is very heartening to read. In the last week or two there’s been a barrage of think pieces from self-described feminists with the general theme of ‘if you oppose Hillary you are pretty much a misogynist’, which has been quite depressing.
If women should support candidates just because they are women, why not have a Liz Cheney-Sarah Palin ticket?
———————————————————-
Samantha Vimes #3:
It’s only internalized misogyny and years of sinister GOP propaganda that has led you to believe that. No woman could come to the conclusion that Bernie is a better candidate than Clinton via their own intelligence, you have been brainwashed by Bernie Bros.
@justinr,
What I try to keep at the forefront of my mind is that I have a tremendous amount of sexism and racism socialized/integrated into my subconscious mind. This does not invalidate the points of disagreement I have with Clinton’s politics. It does, however, mean I will have an implicit bias in:
* how easily my mind recalls “Reasons I don’t want to vote for Hillary”,
* how critically I assess allegations of her shortcomings, and
* how much weight I put into those shortcomings (e.g., without deliberate reflection on my biases, I’d probably be inclined to set a much lower bar for “deal breaker” for Clinton than for Sanders).
Could you supply the direct quotes/context for some of these? Without direct quotes, I can’t say for sure; but I suspect feminists are talking not of direct/deliberate “I’m not voting for a woman” misogyny. Instead, they’re probably referring to the *biases* above, and may be completely spot-on in seeing the voting preferences of others (men and women) being influenced by such biases. In that regard, they probably have a very strong case that a strong current of misogyny underlies much the anti-Clinton stance of many voters.
Kevin Kirkpatrick #5:
I am not dumping a heap of links here, but here is some interesting reading:
‘I Am Voting With My Vagina…’ by Kate Harding
‘Expectations of the Monster’ by Melissa McEwan
‘An All-Caps Explosion…’ by Courtney Enlow
‘The Thatcher Problem’ by Sarah Ditum
+ anything that A. Marcotte has written over the past few months
The context is a deliberate smear campaign by “feminists” and so-called Hillarymen to discredit the Sanders campaign by linking him to Gamergate dudebros and the right-wing hate machine.
@Justn,
I’ve read the first two of those and will get to the rest. Nothing in them comes close to
The former (Harding) is an utter non-sequitor, an explanation of why the AUTHOR supports Clinton and full of phases
“I believe you should vote in a way that reflects your own personal blend of what you value and what you can stomach in a presidential candidate.”
“This is not an essay about how you should vote in the next presidential election.”
“I won’t knock any progressive’s protest vote or general lack of enthusiasm for Clinton”
The second (McEwan) centers on the theme
Which precisely aligns with my point: feminists complaining about misogynistic-driven double standards and anti-woman bias that cause voters, the media, and the political establishment to dig harder for dirt – and make more fanfare over whatever is found – for Hillary than male candidates.
I’d asked for quotes; you gave articles – and the top 2 seem either irrelevant or contradictory to the claim you made. Can you be more specific in backing up your claim:
“Barrage”. That’s a lot. It really should be easy to cite a couple specifically.
The third (Enlow) couldn’t more clearly exemplify my point:
A feminist not claiming “misogyny” for voting against Clinton, but pointing out the misogyny inherent to the double-standard to which she is being held.
And the fourth (Ditum)
I don’t see “if you oppose Hillary you are pretty much a misogynist” even alluded to – much less “the general theme of” – in a single one of these articles. Are you seeing something I’m not?
Your reference to “anything A. Marcotte has written over the past few months” seems, dare I say, a tad weasly. But I’ll go with the first two articles that came up for “Amanda Marcotte Clinton” Google search.
The first, lo and behold… talks about double-standards
And in the second, the general theme is that people who don’t vote for Clinton are misogyn… nope, scratch that. In the second, I don’t see the faintest accusation that voting for Sanders over Clinton amounts to misogyny. The theme I see is the audacious suggestion that Clinton may, in fact, be the better president:
I’m not going to get into a lengthy discussion here (it’s not the old Pharyngula Thunderdome after all), so I’ll respond to Kevin Kirkpatrick’s comments above with this:
http://thebaffler.com/blog/my-kind-misogyny
I endorse every word of the above article.