Today’s Wall Street Journal had an article, “Clinton’s Wall Street Dilemma” detailing the difficulties Hillary Clinton is having fending off innuendo from Bernie Sanders that she is a tool of Wall Street in light of the nearly $15 million her campaign has received from Wall Street Super PACs, the fact that she has received more money than any other candidate from Wall Street executives, the over $100 million the Clintons’ “charitable” foundation and political campaigns have received from Wall Street over the years, and the more than $20 million they have received in speaking fees. A suspicion that Wall Street is interested in more than just good governance is not off base, and if anything, Sanders has gone far too easy on Clinton.
One propellant for the massive protest vote fueling Sanders’ campaign and the Republican insurgencies of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz is the bullshit factor. People are simply tired of being lied to by politicians, bureaucrats, and media figures who have no apparent compunction about lying and no apparent remorse when caught doing so. From the Wall Street Journal article:
“She went to Wall Street before the crash and warned them that what they were doing could hurt the economyand called them out on it,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told reporters Thursday. “She has introduced the strongest plan in this race…It actually deals with the swaps and derivatives that led to this crash.”
“Even for a lot of people on Wall Street , the concept of equity resonates,” said David Lichtenstein, a real estate investor who hosted a fundraiser last month for Mrs. Clinton.
“People on Wall Street have been supporting her not because they think she’s going to roll over on Wall Street, but because they agree with her on other isues outside of Wall Street,” said Thomas Nides, a former deputy secretary of State under Mrs. Clinton and now vice chairman of Morgan Stanley.
Even The Wall Street Journal, which prefers Clinton over Sanders or Trump, cannot keep the truth entirely out of its story, although the truth is termed “the cynical view.”
“She moved to the left because she needed some political cover in her fight against Sanders,” said Greg Valliere, chief global strategist at asset manager Horizon Investments. “Her plan may be aggressive, but her ties to Wall Street make it unlikely that this proposal of hers will be a top priority…it’s the cynical view.”
No, as noted, it’s the truth. As for the fawning and servile eyewash served above, the people quoted can be dismissed as paid for prostitutes, but that would demean a profession far more honorable than politics.
And as you know said profession has been demeaned.
Yes, the world’s oldest career path is also the more nobler.
Should one desire to employ an actual prostitute then both employer and employee know; 1) that “screwing” is the purpose and goal of the specific transaction; 2) which party is giving and receiving said screwing; 3) that its not the promise that counts but the actual deed(s); and 4) the satisfaction stemming from of the results for both parties is easily determined.
Employing a political prostitute rarely brings neither the clarity nor the satisfaction, only a suspicion and nagging doubt that the whore with whom one is dealing is also a fraud and thief.- which, of course, they clearly and unsatisfyingly always are………