Clinton's risky new Wall St. defense: Obama took $, too

Here we go with another huge mistake by the smug and condescending president primary candidate of the democratic party, Hillary Clinton! So after the Corporate Politicians Pelosi and Obama, gave the ACA to the healthcare industry and expected the people to pay and pay some more. Hillary tells us that we should feel warm and cozy that both her and Obama are quite happy being bought by coperations and Wall Street. I think anyone with a 5th grade education can see the problem here.

Hillary Clinton continues to struggle on the left with criticism that she is too close to Wall Street and would not do enough to rein in the nation's largest banks. And now she is rolling out a new defense, saying she is just like President Barack Obama, who took a lot of Wall Street money in 2008.

Hillary Clinton continues to struggle on the left with criticism that she is too close to Wall Street and would not do enough to rein in the nation's largest banks. And now she is rolling out a new defense, saying she is just like President Barack Obama, who took a lot of Wall Street money in 2008. It's a risky strategy that liberal Democrats so far aren't exactly buying. The new defense was on display in Sunday night's Democratic debate when Bernie Sanders ripped Clinton for taking money for her campaign from big banks and getting "personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs." Hillary Clinton campaigning in Iowa last week. Scott Morgan | Reuters Hillary Clinton campaigning in Iowa last week. Clinton fired back that there was "no daylight" between her and Sanders on regulating Wall Street, saying "there should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too powerful to jail." Then she pulled out the Obama card: "But where we disagree is the comments that Senator Sanders has made that don't just affect me, I can take that, but he's criticized President Obama for taking donations from Wall Street, and President Obama has led our country out of the great recession," Clinton said. "I'm going to defend President Obama for taking on Wall Street, taking on the financial industry and getting results."

source


Hillary for lobbyists, Wall Street banksters, and the ACA they love!

Feel the Bern!

a reply to: AlaskanDad

You would think with all of their nefarious dealings she would be able to get huge sums of money without accepting it directly from corporate sponsors ( starting a foundation, like a lot of really wealthy people do, kind of like what Mark Zuckerberg just did recently )


I guess when you're a pig, everything looks like food. She just can't help herself, those dollar signs are enticing and she could never be lowered to the level of having to Drive Herself anywhere.. driving is for the peasants like us.

She's terrible

a reply to: AlaskanDad

What did Obama do to the financial industry?
Think she needs to read the pulse of the moderates out there, not all of them think Barry was all that great of president.
Don't think actually saying you are going to be at least four more years of Obama is the way to go at this point.

originally posted by: Sremmos80

What did Obama do to the financial industry?

Not what he did "TO".

What he did "FOR".

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: AlaskanDad

What did Obama do to the financial industry?
Think she needs to read the pulse of the moderates out there, not all of them think Barry was all that great of president.
Don't think actually saying you are going to be at least four more years of Obama is the way to go at this point.

I don't much know WTF the OP is on about either, however Wall Street donations are carefully primed, and donations can be and are, given to all the main candidates. People need to look up contributions made in the 2004 campaign for instance, (the list is incomplete by millions for all donors of course)

Morgan Stanley $604,280
Merrill Lynch $558,804
PricewaterhouseCoopers $508,500
UBS AG $442,325
Goldman Sachs $396,350
Lehman Brothers $355,525
US Government $334,611
Citigroup Inc $317,375
MBNA Corp $313,600
Ernst & Young $304,340
Bear Stearns $302,850
Deloitte LLP $293,050
Credit Suisse Group $279,590
Wachovia Corp $273,760
Bank of America $258,361
JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,005
Blank Rome LLP $225,150
US Dept of State $220,280
Ameriquest Capital $208,130
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $199,075

Obama's 2008 list.

University of California $1,799,460
Goldman Sachs $1,034,615
Harvard University $900,909
Microsoft Corp $854,717
JPMorgan Chase & Co $847,895
Google Inc $817,855
Citigroup Inc $755,057
US Government $638,335
Time Warner $617,844
Sidley Austin LLP $606,260
Stanford University $603,866
National Amusements Inc $579,098
Columbia University $570,839
Skadden, Arps et al $554,439
WilmerHale Llp $554,373
US Dept of Justice $540,636
IBM Corp $534,470
UBS AG $534,166
General Electric $532,031
Morgan Stanley $528,182

University contributions are likely groupings from individuals.

Example for G.W. Bush in 2000,

Bush's Major Contributors:
Total Receipts: $191,617,196 Total Spent: $183,052,265 Cash on Hand: $8,599,869

Bush and the rest,
(source Center for Responsive Politics as of 6-1-00) www.opensecrets.org
BUSH MONEY TRAIL BY INDUSTRY GROUP
Agribusiness: Bush : $2,148,624 - Gore $240,350
Oil & Gas: Bush $1,463,799 - Gore $95,460 (Bush once said "You can't get too close to the oil industry")
Construction: Bush $3,472,821 - Gore $920,938
Real Estate: Bush $3,661,372 - Gore $1,213,310
Automotive: Bush $1,019,581 - Gore $79,085
Drug companies: Republicans/Bush 73% of $13,800,000 - Democrats/Gore 23% of $13,800,000 (Wall Street)

Next!

Oops! nearly forgot, why is Trump, on this campaign trail, dancing with the Moonies at Liberty, er 'University' ?



You can't make this stuff up...it just gets more weird!

a reply to: AlaskanDad

A Trump vs Sanders race is possible but not probable. I do think that what ever you think of either man the occurrence would ultimately be good for the USA. Trump is already scaring the living the daylights out of the corporate/Wall St backers who bankroll US elections. Having both main candidates in the race who don't have to the usual source of funds would dump the establishment into the wildness.

In political terms Sanders isn't my cup of tea. But I do respect for the fact if you vote for him you know what you are getting and he doesn't have Hillary Clinton's baggage.

a reply to: smurfy

Can you explain what this is in reference to? How is it significant? I'm just really curious

Oops! nearly forgot, why is Trump, on this campaign trail, dancing with the Moonies at Liberty, er 'University' ?

You can't make this stuff up...it just gets more weird!