People keep saying this, but no evidence at all. Other than the fact she got paid for some speeches, which is what every out of office politico does.
Here’s a Washington Post article that talks about Sanders’ ability (or lack thereof) to get bills passed.
He’s been very successful at getting riders attached to bills, which has little or nothing to do with coalition-building.
So suppose Clinton gives a concession to Sanders and agrees to push for Universal free secondary education. The promise has as much chance of becoming reality as the Tea partiers promising to overturn Obama care. She can bring it up to the House 47 times and they can shoot it down 47 times. I’m not sure how the helps the progressive cause.
Clinton and Sanders have always had about the same positions, the devil is in the details.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2016-03-11/sanders-and-clinton-arent-that-different-on-debt-free-college
The difference is- her ideas are workable. Just not *simplistic. *
Though Dangerosa and DrDeth already replied to this post of yours, I’d like to know specifically what you mean by “in hock big time.” Are you claiming that she has signed contracts of some kind with Wall Street firms, or what?
If your answer depends on ‘she was paid to give speeches,’ then I’d be interested to know how giving a speech is the same thing as “in hock to.”
More particularly, if a Wall Street firm came to you and said “we’d like you to give a speech to us; here’s a check for $___________”—what dollar figure would have to fill in that blank, in order for it to constitute and be equivalent to you being “in hock to” that firm?
It would be very interesting to learn of an actual example or two of something she’s actually done, contrary to the interests of We The People, in response to the wishes of Wall Street.
I’m sure something can be found. After all she was a Senator from New York. Her constituency there included a lot of people who are dependent on Wall Street for their livelihoods - and they aren’t all rich investment bankers and traders - there are a lot of people who work on Wall Street in normal everyday jobs making normal sorts of incomes - IT people, administrative assistants, custodians.
Her Iraq war vote should also be weighed with the understanding that she was a Senator from New York. Her constituents - by and large - wanted retribution.
What is involved in serving the citizens of New York State is going to be different in what is involved in serving the citizens of New Hampshire - or serving the citizens of the country as a whole.