2nd Democratic Debate 11/14/15


In a nutshell, yes. Here is the entire exchange, in a spoiler box, because it’s somewhat long (mods, I think this is fine to quote, but if not, feel free to remove. If removed, go to the transcript and search for “People should be suspect of candidates who receive large sums of money from Wall Street.”)

[SPOILER]DICKERSON: Senator Sanders recently said, quote, "People should be suspect of candidates who receive large sums of money from Wall Street and then go out and say ‘Trust me. I’m going to really regulate wall street’.

So you’ve received millions of dollars in contributions and speaking fees from from Wall Street companies. How do you convince voters that you are going to level the playing field when you’re indebted to some of its biggest players?

CLINTON: Well, I think it’s pretty clear that they know that I will. You have two billionaire hedge fund managers who started a super PAC and they’re advertising against me in Iowa as we speak. So they clearly think I’m going to do what I say I will do and you can look at what I did in the Senate.

I did introduce legislation to reign in compensation. I looked at ways that the shareholders would have more control over what was going on in that arena. And specifically said to Wall Street, that what they were doing in the mortgage market was bringing our country down. I’ve laid out a very aggressive plan to reign in Wall Street – not just the big banks.

That’s a part of the problem and I am going right at them. I have a comprehensive, tough plan. But I went further than that. We have to go after what is called the shadow banking industry. Those hedge funds. Look at what happened in '08, AIG, a big insurance company, Lehman Brothers, an investment bank helped to bring our economy down. So, I want to look at the whole problem and that’s why my proposal is much more comprehensive than anything else that’s been put forth.

DICKERSON: Senator Sanders you said that the donations to Secretary Clinton are compromising. So what did you think of her answer?

Sanders: Not good enough.


SANDERS: Here’s the story. I mean, you know, let’s not be naive about it. Why do – why, over her political career has Wall Street been a major – the major campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton? You know, maybe they’re dumb and they don’t know what they’re going to get, but I don’t think so.

Here is the major issue when we talk about Wall Street. It ain’t complicated. You have six financial institutions today that have assets of 56 percent, equivalent to 56 percent of the GDP In America. They issue two-thirds of the credit cards and one-third of the mortgages.

If Teddy Roosevelt, a good Republican, were alive today, you know what he’d say? “Break them up.” Reestablish Glass-Steagall. And Teddy Roosevelt is right. That is the issue. Now I am the only candidate up here that doesn’t have a super PAC. I am not asking Wall Street or the billionaires for money. I will break up these banks. Support community banks and credit unions. That’s the future of banking in America.

DICKERSON: Great follow up because you – and Secretary Clinton, you will get a chance to respond.

You said they know what they’re going to get. What are they going to get?

SANDERS: I have never heard a candidate never, who has received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street, from the military industrial complex, not one candidate say, oh, these campaign contributions will not influence me. I’m going to be independent. Well, why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? they expect to get something. Everybody knows that.

Once again, I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors, 750,000 of them, 30 bucks a piece. That’s who I’m indebted to.

CLINTON: Well John, wait a minute. Wait a minute, he has basically used his answer to impune my integrity. Let’s be frank here.

SANDERS: No, I have not. CLINTON: Oh, wait a minute, senator. You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small. And I’m very proud that for the first time a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent.


CLINTON: So, I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.

So, you know, it’s fine for you to say what you’re going to say, but I looked very carefully at your proposal. Reinstating Glass- Steagall is a part of what very well could help, but it is nowhere near enough. My proposal is tougher, more effective, and more comprehensive because I go after all of Wall Street not just the big banks.[/SPOILER]In context, Sanders is saying, hey, be suspicious of how much money Clinton is getting from Wall Street, and Clinton is saying, no, look, I advocated to rebuild Wall Street after they were the brunt of the 9/11 attack, which was the right thing to do, and (this part she doesn’t say, but it’s my inference) they are contributing out of gratitude. They shouldn’t expect anything, because I am going to regulate the fuck out of them. I don’t buy this argument, FWIW, but it seems to be what she’s getting at.

But more than that, not only do they donate out of gratitude, but “it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”

She seriously said that. Give me money, that will show those terrorists! As I said above, it was a terrible play and she’s lucky that nobody aside from a twitter user had the balls to call her out.

I think she said that rebuilding was a rebuke to the terrorists, not the donations to her campaign. But whatever, it was surprisingly inarticulate from Clinton, and there’s no good that’s come out of this for her. But I don’t see this as anything more than a minor gaffe that has no real impact on the race (either primary or general.)

Dubya did use the terms “Islamic fascism,” and several variations at times. Also, for his shortcomings, he wasn’t perceived to potentially be a Muslim, like Obama is by a decent amount of the country nor was Dubya perceived to dishonor Israel. I mean I understand why Hillary isn’t using “radical Islam” or a variation of it: she dosn’t wanna be called a “neo-con” as took her down in 2008 to Obama. I want her to win. I do once again credit her for calling out “jihadism” and using the term “Islamist,” unlike Barack Hussein Obama. I almost left the Dem party in 2012 over Obama’s foreign policy, but I wasn’t ready to be a one-issue voter. I’m still liberal on most else. However, real Americans do not favor Iranian Mullahs over the Prime Minister of Israel, ever. Luckily, Hillary was known to be tougher on Iran than Obama. I bet HRC flips on “Radical Islamic Terrorism” soon. I do have faith in her that she’ll restore the relationship between the world’s two greatest nations.

Also, what is with the class-warfare some on the left are pushing today? So what that people on Wall Street like Hillary. She’s not into the whole Bernie Sanders “free stuff” thing. GOOD!

From Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair And Balanced Look at the Right:

The perceptions of whackos shouldn’t affect anyone’s opinion of the President. There’s no good reason to believe that he is Muslim or that he dishonored Israel. Disagreement is not dishonor (and there were many Israelis who agreed with him).

The Iranian Mullahs were largely on Netanyahu’s side on this. You know who favored the deal in Iran? Iranian moderates. I’m glad that Obama stood apart from the most radical Iranians, and apart from Netanyahu.

Its not opposition to the Bush tax cuts that are class warfare. Class warfare is the whole Occupy Wall Street crap, the “we are the 99%,” the “Hillary is evil bc she doesn’t wanna end Wall Street/finance,” that kind of thing.

Iran’s Mullahs, by which I am referring to their fanatical religious leadership, wanna wipe the Jewish State off the map, their Dear Leader Khameini included.

And they generally opposed the nuclear deal, just like Netanyahu. Good for Obama for standing apart from Khameini and Netanyahu, and making it much less likely that those Mullahs will get nuclear weapons.

What I find fascinating about that exchange isn’t the bit at the end about 9-11; it’s that for the rest of the response, Clinton is trying to stake out a position to the left of Sanders.

The Bernie Sanders “free stuff” thing? It’s Wall Street that’s getting most of the free stuff right now, and Sanders is the one trying to stop that.