Skip to content

Month: February 2016

Bernie Sanders and the Clinton Wall Street speeches: a proposal, by @Gaius_Publius

Published by digby on February 1, 2016

Bernie Sanders and the Clinton Wall Street speeches: a proposal

by Gaius Publius

The recent Clinton Wall Street speeches article by Zaid Jilani has been covered in many places (see excerpts below), but I want to make one additional point. I think the voters need to see what she said because (a) she’s historically been too close to Wall Street for many voters’ comfort, and (b) what she said to them is likely a strong indication of what she will do as president, especially given the speeches’ closed-door nature.

Who knows? Maybe all she said was, “Cut it out or I’ll make you cut it out.” I would actually love to know that this was the case, and so would many Democratic voters. 

Again, this is not trolling, this request, but in the public interest; very much in the public interest, in fact. It’s also in her interest if these speeches are entirely innocent, entirely anodyne.

There has been some call for their release, but that call has to come, in my opinion, from somewhere very high in the media at least, and preferably from the Sanders campaign itself. Meaning, from Bernie Sanders or Jeff Weaver, speaking on air and on the record.


What Sanders should ask for

If the Sanders campaign does request the release of these speeches, they should request all of them. For example, as Jilani notes below, she gave three speeches to Goldman Sachs and two to Deutsche Bank. Her message to each institution, to the extent there is one, is in the sum of the speeches, not in just one (for example, a ribbon-cutting ceremony with some remarks appended).

He should also ask for their immediate release, not a release delayed until after Super Tuesday, for example. After all, the Clinton campaign insisted (and rightly in my view) for a release of the Sanders health care plan prior to the Iowa primary. The same principle is true here.


About those speeches

Here’s the gist of Zaid Jilani’s article at The Intercept on Clinton’s Wall Street speeches (my emphasis to note multiple speeches to two institutions):

Hillary Clinton Made More in 12 Speeches to Big Banks Than Most of Us Earn in a Lifetime

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders this week assailed rival Hillary Clinton for taking large speaking fees from the financial industry since leaving the State Department.

According to public disclosures, by giving just 12 speeches to Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations, Clinton made $2,935,000 from 2013 to 2015 [see graphic above] …

Clinton’s most lucrative year was 2013, right after stepping down as secretary of state. That year, she made $2.3 million for three speeches to Goldman Sachs and individual speeches to Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Fidelity Investments, Apollo Management Holdings, UBS, Bank of America, and Golden Tree Asset Managers.

The following year, she picked up $485,000 for a speech to Deutsche Bank and an address to Ameriprise. Last year, she made $150,000 from a lecture before the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. …

There’s more at the link.

The Sanders campaign should not do this as an aid to themselves. After all, it’s not certain who the release of these speeches will aid. They should do it as an aid to the public, so we can put this question to rest before voting.

Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you’d like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you’d like to “phone-bank for Bernie,” go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.

Iowa caucus explainer by @BloggersRUs

Published by Tom Sullivan on February 1, 2016

Iowa caucus explainer
by Tom Sullivan


Muscatine in 1865, by Barber and Howe (The Loyal West in the Times of the Rebellion)
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Okay, I don’t know from Iowa. Although, in college I had a housemate from Muscatine. At least, that’s what she said. And once, back when the speed limit was 55 mph, I drove across Iowa. Alone. At night. The road signs said Iowa. But it was dark. I sort of had to take Iowa on faith.

Kind of like understanding how tonight’s Iowa caucuses work. NPR has an explainer for how this all works:

It’s essentially a neighborhood meeting of sorts — for politically active, like-minded people. Unlike the kind of voting most people are used to — which only takes a few minutes and involves pushing a button or pulling a lever in the secrecy of a voting booth — Iowans have to devote an hour or so of their evenings to the process. The caucuses on the Democratic side are also much more out in the open — everyone knows who you voted for and possibly why. This is why ardency of support is important. That’s because in Democratic caucuses, you don’t vote with your fingers, you vote with your feet. (More on that in our long answer below.) For Republicans in Iowa, the process is much simpler and more orderly. Someone from the campaigns might speak for their candidate, but then voting happens by an informal secret ballot. Think: Folded over pieces of paper passed in and collected.

Read on. For Democrats, there’s a 15 percent threshold for candidates in the first count or they are not considered viable. Pull the plug.

That’s still a little vague, so Vermont Public Radio illustrates the process with Legos.

Seems like a suspicious number of Bernie supporter types in that Vermont Public Radio video.

QOTD: a profound narcissist

Published by digby on February 1, 2016

QOTD: a profound narcissist

by digby

We are going to win so much, we’re going to have win after win after win. You people are going to get sick and tired of winning.  You’re gonna say “Please, please President Trump we can’t take this much victory”, please stop, we don’t want any more wins” and I’m gonna say to you “we’re gonna win, I don’t care what you say, we’re gonna make our country great again” We’re gonna win, we’re gonna win, We’re going to WIN!!! 

.