Today,
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders each gave a disappointing answer on ABC's This Week.
Hillary,
in responding to the argument that she cannot be trusted to challenge Wall
Street because she receives lots of contributions from Wall Street, noted that
President Obama and other Democrats took Wall Street contributions, but still
fought for laws (i.e., Dodd Frank) that Wall Street opposed; and that only a
tiny percentage of her donors are Wall Street types. See
video clip , starting at the six minute, 15 second mark. While the first point is legitimate, I suspect
the second may miss the point: I have no doubt that Wall Streeters are a
small percentage of her donors, but what is the percentage of the dollars
contributed by Wall Streeters to her campaign and to PACs supporting her?
More significantly, what she did not say, but presumably could say, is that those on Wall Street who support her understand that she will press for more regulation and a fairer tax system (things they may not be crazy about), but that they also understand that her policies are better for the economy overall and that that is why they prefer her: Smart Wall Streeters understand that when the mass of people do well, then Wall Street benefits, as well. People are right to be suspicious about these contributions, and Democrats receiving them need to provide an understandable and persuasive explanation in order to ally such suspicions.
Bernie was asked about statements he made in the early 1970s arguing for nationalization of the oil companies and for government ownership of all public utilities and other entities which provide essential services. I would have thought that he would have said that he no longer advocates some of the specific ideas he had more than 40 years ago, because his 30 years in public office have enabled him to develop a better sense of what would work and what would not work. Instead, he just said that these statements had been made a long time ago and asked people to focus only on his record as an elected official. When then asked if he still agrees with those 1973 and 1974 statements, he hesitated a long time and then repeated his original answer. He could not bring himself to answer either way. See video clip starting at the five-minute mark. Failure to answer the follow-up seems to be an indirect admission that he still adheres to his old statements. If Bernie has learned nothing that would cause him to not slavishly follow everything he asserted in his youth, then he would be a very vulnerable general election candidate.
More significantly, what she did not say, but presumably could say, is that those on Wall Street who support her understand that she will press for more regulation and a fairer tax system (things they may not be crazy about), but that they also understand that her policies are better for the economy overall and that that is why they prefer her: Smart Wall Streeters understand that when the mass of people do well, then Wall Street benefits, as well. People are right to be suspicious about these contributions, and Democrats receiving them need to provide an understandable and persuasive explanation in order to ally such suspicions.
Bernie was asked about statements he made in the early 1970s arguing for nationalization of the oil companies and for government ownership of all public utilities and other entities which provide essential services. I would have thought that he would have said that he no longer advocates some of the specific ideas he had more than 40 years ago, because his 30 years in public office have enabled him to develop a better sense of what would work and what would not work. Instead, he just said that these statements had been made a long time ago and asked people to focus only on his record as an elected official. When then asked if he still agrees with those 1973 and 1974 statements, he hesitated a long time and then repeated his original answer. He could not bring himself to answer either way. See video clip starting at the five-minute mark. Failure to answer the follow-up seems to be an indirect admission that he still adheres to his old statements. If Bernie has learned nothing that would cause him to not slavishly follow everything he asserted in his youth, then he would be a very vulnerable general election candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment