How quickly we forget. This was actually a big deal a few years ago during the first volley of the circular fire over the direction of the Democratic Party. My concern was the same as the Third Way and other lefty Liberal Democrats. While Senator Hillary Clinton was from the state of New York which required her to look after Wall Streets interest, some argue she tended and tendered their interests. Those some included me, left-leaning populists and we will not chute back down into finical chaos the Obama Administration has so quietly and digiliently climbed us out of, not gonna nope our hope. No one.
Back in 2013 when this happened, this did not go pass like a ship in the night.
Why Liberal Democrats Are Skeptical of Hillary Clinton, in One Paragraph
Hint: It's the same reason an auditorium of Goldman Sachs executives gave her a warm welcome recently.
DAVID A. GRAHAM DEC 12, 2013, The Atlantic
www.theatlantic.com/...
But the static—like this week's dust-up between Senator Elizabeth Warren and the center-left think-tank Third Way—isn't irrelevant. These skirmishes are part of a back and forth in the Democratic Party over what it should look like in 2016. To understand why the Warren wing of the party is making noise, look no further than a report from Ben White and Maggie Haberman in Politico MagazineThursday. They take us to Goldman Sachs' New York headquarters, where the former secretary of state spoke to executives recently:
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Jim O’Neill, the laconic Brit who heads the bank’s asset management division, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).
White and Haberman quote
a relieved banker: "It was like, 'Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game.' Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness." Of course, the progressives think Democrats are just coming out of the wilderness now: Bill de Blasio will soon be the mayor of the city where Goldman is based.
Larry Summers won't chair the Federal Reserve. The Volcker Rule reigns. Now, it seems like the next Democratic nominee wants to go back down the path they've so laboriously climbed.
This has always been the part about the Clintons that has never sat right with me. They have always been fans of exotic finance at the cost of mom and pop main street. These guys are real life villains, since we cannot call them criminals for some reason, because criminals would be in jail. Villains get to caper like the plutocrats of Manhattan.
The only way I will take Hillary Clinton seriously about her Goldman Sachs remarks is if she continues President Obama’s legacy of keeping K Street off of Penn Ave.
I am sure she will look into that.