Wall Street Donors to Clinton: Pick Warren and Your Fundraising Gets It

[theBLADE1]

$hillary Clinton's Wall Street pimps have laid down the law. You don't get to pick Warren(Who has been historically very tough on Wall Street) as your VP If you want that sweet cash flow to continue.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/wall-street-to-clinton-warren-is-not-an-option.html

Wall Street donors have a message for Hillary Clinton: You can have our cash or Elizabeth Warren as your running mate, but you can’t have both. Dozens of anonymous financial fat cats tell Politico that Vice-President Warren would be “damaging to the economy” — especially the “economy” of Hillary for America.

“If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her,” a top Democratic donor told the political-news outlet. “They would literally just say, ‘We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can’t trust you, you’ve killed it.’”

If the Clinton campaign decided to plant a story to amplify the credibility-enhancing potential of a Warren pick to grieving Sandernistas, this is pretty much how it would read: The dozens of big-money donors all insisted on anonymity because “they feared Warren’s wrath”; they warn that a Vice-President Warren could jeopardize a deal on their preferred version of corporate tax “reform”; they suggest Warren doesn’t feel “comfortable spending time with the rich people you need to raise money from"; and they say there is a “chance for much better relations between business and the White House than during President Barack Obama’s tenure” — a tenure that was so unfriendly to business, it featured the bailout of the financial sector, a “free trade” agreement that actually offerstrade protection to well-connected American industries, and a cabinet staffed with no small number of former Wall Street executives — but not if Warren is in the White House serving as the wet-blanket-in-chief.

What I want to know is how in the fuck could this surprise anyone?

Warren created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which makes it more difficult for the finance industry to scam ordinary investors, and led the charge for the Obama administration’s “fiduciary rule,” which requires investment advisers to put the financial interests of their clients ahead of their own — in other words, traders can no longer gamble with grandmas’ rent money. And, of course, Warren is one of the party’s strongest advocates for breaking up the big banks.

Anyone who is ever under the illusion that Clinton was going to pick Warren as her VP were delusional morons. Does that sound like the kind of person Wall Street donors want to meet with on a regular basis? $hillary Clinton has never been on the side of looking out for the regular person. She's nothing more than a corporate/Wall Street whore and if Democratic voters don't know that by now is because they don't want to know.

 

[TheStruggle]

Yes Daddy....


*slurping noises*

 

[theBLADE1]

That's right I already forgot that it's a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton is a Wall Street Corporatist and would never choose Elizabeth Warren. No need to have a discussion about it right?

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

This is an actual meaningful story.

Wall Street is using its money (quite effectively) to dictate who can and can't be in the White House, and fuck all you little peons and your stupid "votes".

If Hillary actually bucks them and picks Warren anyway, everybody ought to support her, because if crossing Wall Street were to cost her the election, good luck ever finding anyone to try and stand up to them again.

If she doesn't, everybody ought to continue demanding financial reform, campaign finance reform, and back a candidate more strongly committed to it next time.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I don't see how this implies she doesn't care about anyone and is a corporatist. At worst you can say she is bought out by high finance to listen to "reforms and regulations" that they find preferable.

The simple fact that Hillary stands for higher minimum wage, free trade, expanding Obamacare, expanding the social safety nets, expanding access to education are leaps and bounds beyond and better than what any of the Republican shills (or Libertarian shills) have so far proposed.

We must remember that Obama himself took loads of Goldman Sachs money. And despite all of it Goldman could not buy him. Obama took on Wall Street while Hillary was his Secretary of State and Hillary wants to continue the Obama progress. Anyhow, Wall Street isn't evil or "controlling" anything. The truth is that high finance is a very instrumental part of our economy.

 

[JosephDredd]

This is an actual meaningful story.

Wall Street is using its money (quite effectively) to dictate who can and can't be in the White House, and fuck all you little peons and your stupid "votes".

If Hillary actually bucks them and picks Warren anyway, everybody ought to support her, because if crossing Wall Street were to cost her the election, good luck ever finding anyone to try and stand up to them again.

If she doesn't, everybody ought to continue demanding financial reform, campaign finance reform, and back a candidate more strongly committed to it next time.

I agree.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is a pretty clever move by anonymous finance types who probably actually prefer Trump. Kind of like BLM types "leaking" that Trump could lose their support if he fails to pick Paul Ryan as his running mate. Win-win.

 

[VivaRevolution]

$hillary Clinton's Wall Street pimps have laid down the law. You don't get to pick Warren(Who has been historically very tough on Wall Street) as your VP If you want that sweet cash flow to continue.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/wall-street-to-clinton-warren-is-not-an-option.html




What I want to know is how in the fuck could this surprise anyone?



Anyone who is ever under the illusion that Clinton was going to pick Warren as her VP were delusional morons. Does that sound like the kind of person Wall Street donors want to meet with on a regular basis? $hillary Clinton has never been on the side of looking out for the regular person. She's nothing more than a corporate/Wall Street whore and if Democratic voters don't know that by now is because they don't want to know.

This is why I say that as much as I hate Hillary Clinton, that I will vote for her, if she makes some moves that corner her into a progressive path.

I don't want Warren as the VP because I think it de-nuts her, but god damn I think Tulsi Gabbard is the best VP pick out there. This along with a few other things could honestly get me to vote for her.

I have little faith in the idea that Clinton fears the people, more then she fears Wall Street.

BTW Dems, Corey Booker is not a progressive, he is a corporate dem.

 

[TodayMaldonadoDiedRIP]

Awww so funny watch you dumb monkeys talk about who you are gonna vote for.... Democracy is garbage!! Fight the system! Anarchy in the UK!!!

 

[theBLADE1]

She is not going to stand up to anybody. She has been too cozy with Wall Street for too long and she will bow down like she is being told. If I'm wrong then I'll own it, but if she doesn't pick Warren then everybody knows why. Also Hillary Clinton doesn't want Warren as her VP because everyone is going to listen to Elizabeth talk and go....

"Damn why isn't she at the top of the ticket"

$hillary Will not pick Warren. In fact she is going to pick the most center of centrist Democrats imaginable and it will drive progressives crazy. Mark my words.

 

[theBLADE1]

This is why I say that as much as I hate Hillary Clinton, that I will vote for her, if she makes some moves that corner her into a progressive path.

I don't want Warren as the VP because I think it de-nuts her, but god damn I think Tulsi Gabbard is the best VP pick out there. This along with a few other things could honestly get me to vote for her.

I have little faith in the idea that Clinton fears the people, more then she fears Wall Street.

BTW Dems, Corey Booker is not a progressive, he is a corporate dem.

Hillary Clinton is too egotistical to make any of the moves you're talking about. She will not move left on healthcare, college tuition, and the $15 minimum wage. I might vote for her if she did the health care thing to, but she's not picking Warren as the VP and she is not going to do anything to try and convert Sanders voters.

 

[Krallang]

sometimes I feel like certain stories are used to gauge the public's reaction without having to involve a candidate. This almost feels like one of those times.

Where members of the DNC leak a story to judge how the public reacts so they can make a decision going forward.

Hillary's campaign is if nothing else meticulous so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few stories leak here and there with possible VP names thrown in and see how they gain traction with the public.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is why I say that as much as I hate Hillary Clinton, that I will vote for her, if she makes some moves that corner her into a progressive path.

I don't want Warren as the VP because I think it de-nuts her, but god damn I think Tulsi Gabbard is the best VP pick out there. This along with a few other things could honestly get me to vote for her.

I have little faith in the idea that Clinton fears the people, more then she fears Wall Street.

BTW Dems, Corey Booker is not a progressive, he is a corporate dem.

I think Warren would be a terrific VP (or president), but she's also a great Senator, and she might be of more value holding that seat. I don't know a ton about the potential choices, but I have to think that there's a way to get a high-caliber choice without fucking the Senate.

Gabbard seems cool, but she's not remotely qualified for VP. Given Clinton's age, I think that would be a very irresponsible, almost Palinesque pick (I mean, she wouldn't embarrass herself as much as Palin did, but similarly unready). I'd be surprised and disappointed if she were even considered.

And Booker is certainly a progressive. Using "corporate" as a vague insult is just saying that you don't like him but don't know why.

 

[theBLADE1]

Hillary's campaign is if nothing else meticulous so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few stories leak here and there with possible VP names thrown in and see how they gain traction with the public.

I've seen some people online saying this as well. That this could be a plant by the Clinton campaign so that if she does choose Warren, she looks like a good guy who willingly disavows her long associated Wall Street backers. Basically, an underhanded attempt to get Sanders supporters to cross over.

While I certainly would not put something like this past her campaign, I think that's a reading too much into it. Elizabeth Warren has been hell on Wall Street and especially being a champion of recent legislation that has made financial advisors have to become fiduciaries by next year. She has also always been one of the champions of breaking up the big banks. So to me this story is as it appears.

 

[Fawlty]

I don't buy for a second that plenty of big money won't flow Hillary's way if she picks Warren. The VP has about dick in a little guillotine to do with managing the economy barring some freak occurrence like the Cheney tiebreaker. Hillary, like Obama, will be friendly enough to corporate America, especially when it comes to global markets. We can't on one hand criticize her for globalism while on the other claim that she's bad for big business. That's too weird even for a Sanders supporter thread.

 

[theBLADE1]

I think Warren would be a terrific VP (or president), but she's also a great Senator, and she might be of more value holding that seat. I don't know a ton about the potential choices, but I have to think that there's a way to get a high-caliber choice without fucking the Senate.

I'm fairly certain she will pick a centrist Democrat in order to pick up right-leaning voters away from Trump. This is also part of the reason why Sanders hasn't dropped out yet so that Clinton can't start pivoting to the right.

Gabbard seems cool, but she's not remotely qualified for VP. Given Clinton's age, I think that would be a very irresponsible, almost Palinesque pick (I mean, she wouldn't embarrass herself as much as Palin did, but similarly unready).

I agree that Gabbard is probably unqualified to be VP. But that would never happen anyway as she quit her job as the DNC's vice chair to endorse Sanders.

And Booker is certainly a progressive.

I'm not sure you know where the progressive actually is.

Using "corporate" as a vague insult is just saying that you don't like him but don't know why.

I'm pretty sure using the word "corporate" as an insult means they are generally aligned with the interest of the financial elite. But until HRG Explains himself further then you can't really say that he has no reason for saying that about Booker.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I think Warren would be a terrific VP (or president), but she's also a great Senator, and she might be of more value holding that seat. I don't know a ton about the potential choices, but I have to think that there's a way to get a high-caliber choice without fucking the Senate.

Gabbard seems cool, but she's not remotely qualified for VP. Given Clinton's age, I think that would be a very irresponsible, almost Palinesque pick (I mean, she wouldn't embarrass herself as much as Palin did, but similarly unready). I'd be surprised and disappointed if she were even considered.

And Booker is certainly a progressive. Using "corporate" as a vague insult is just saying that you don't like him but don't know why.

Picking Gabbard would be grooming her for a potential run for president in the future. It has to be one of Bernie's top priorities to ensure her support for him, does not cost her a future political career.

It makes sense for Clinton in the sense that having a combat vet on the ticket, has enormous political value, and it is a pick that will quell the dissent of the Bernie or bust crowd.

I mean think about Trump's talking tough, when countered by Gabbard's taunts of asking if he has ever been in a combat zone................Gabbard might just be the end of Teflon Don.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Hillary Clinton is too egotistical to make any of the moves you're talking about. She will not move left on healthcare, college tuition, and the $15 minimum wage. I might vote for her if she did the health care thing to, but she's not picking Warren as the VP and she is not going to do anything to try and convert Sanders voters.

I think you are right, but don't forget that Clinton is a creature of political calculation.

 

[theBLADE1]

Picking Gabbard would be grooming her for a potential run for president in the future. It has to be one of Bernie's top priorities to ensure her support for him, does not cost her a future political career.

It makes sense for Clinton in the sense that having a combat vet on the ticket, has enormous political value, and it is a pick that will quell the dissent of the Bernie or bust crowd.

I mean think about Trump's talking tough, when countered by Gabbard's taunts of asking if he has ever been in a combat zone................Gabbard might just be the end of Teflon Don.

Gabbard quit the DNC to endorse Sanders. Even when some of her superiors were telling her not to do so for her own political future she did it anyway. The Clintons are very vindictive and they keep track of who has been on their side and who hasn't.

 

[theBLADE1]

We must remember that Obama himself took loads of Goldman Sachs money. And despite all of it Goldman could not buy him. Obama took on Wall Street while Hillary was his Secretary of State and Hillary wants to continue the Obama progress. Anyhow, Wall Street isn't evil or "controlling" anything. The truth is that high finance is a very instrumental part of our economy.

$hillary Is not Obama. This argument holds no weight or meaning to anyone who's paying attention. Her donors are threatening to abandon her and we will see what she will end up doing. It's obvious what I think she's gonna do.