The past, especially the political past, doesn’t just provide clues to the present. In the realm of the presidency and Wall Street, it provides an ongoing pathway for political-financial relationships and policies that remain a threat to the American economy going forward.
The bankers will stick behind Clinton. Their only viable GOP candidate would be Jeb, and they surely know that he has a difficult time putting his ego aside and taking advice. No, Jeb likes to run the show, as he demonstrated in Florida. HRC knows better how to play the game. She’ll get the bankers’ support, although the bankers will throw cash the GOP’s way, just to hedge their bet.
Although Prins reminds us that with respect to her financial interests “Hillary Clinton is not her husband”, the name of their foundation, which receives boatloads of corporate cash each year, is THE BILL, HILLARY AND CHELSEA CLINTON FOUNDATION.
In addition, as pay back for his 8 year gift giving spree, Bill has enjoyed an 8 figure annual corporate speaking fee income ($17 million in 2013 alone) since leaving the white house. Banksters will cut that funding if Hillary threatens any meaningful action that impacts the growth of their income.
As is the preference among forum “regulars,” you are pushing a Personality Politics suitable to People Magazine.
The article explains that bankers tend to back both parties. And as Senator Dodd stated, “The banks own the place.” Since banks are where the money is, and it takes a lot of money to sponsor all the militarism that allows small groups of persons (1%) to run the world, ANY viable candidate is going to have the backing of the banks.
While this article focuses on the sell-out that both Clintons represent as professional politicians = hustlers, liars, masters of deception (as current Washington, D.C. politics demands), the more significant truth is that it does not matter which puppet gets out front. BIG MONEY runs the show through its deep state apparatus, control of media, the military, the courts, the banks, much of academe, pharmaceutical products and what passes for health “care,” and even the food that we eat.
The 2nd Talking Point/protocol is the Team Sports mentality that loves to set up competitive frames in attempts to make one party look worse than the other. This sleight of argumentative “hand” ensures that readers focus on the ball going back and forth rather than who sets up THE GAME.
This is an EXCELLENT article! Well laid out, reasoned, and explained as to why, no matter what HC’s campaign rhetoric may say to the contrary, she is in WS’s pocket … Wonder if Bernie will use it in his campaign “against” Clinton - ha,ha,ha …
Should be “required” reading by all tempted by the LOTE routine …
Excellent outline of history Nomi Prins. Thanks for your research and writing, and thanks TomDispatch and Common Dreams for re-publishing it.
This sort of straightforward reportorial analysis should be featured in the NYT, WaPo and WSJ. Fat chance!
i recall the front page of the NYT the day after Glass Steagall was repealed, with a photo of a laughing and beaming B. Clinton surrounded by laughing and beaming banksters in the moment after he signed the bill. i saved a copy of that front page for years, but sadly had recycled it in a move prior to the meltdown of 2008, less than ten years after the bankster bills of 1999 were signed.
“ANY viable candidate is going to have the backing of the banks.”
Why do you persist in perpetuating the self defeating meme that money decides politics?
the “viability” of a candidate is decided by us - money “wins” only if we let it …
Willie Sutton the infamous bank robber, was once asked: " why do you rob banks"? And he answered," because that is where the money is".
That question could be put to Hillary and both parties this way: " Why have you robbed the American people and become whores for Wall Street banksters"?
And they could answer the same way: " Because that is where the $$$$$$$$$ are"!
Willie robbed the banks from the outside, but these Wall Street whores, rob the American people from the inside!
Oh yeah - I do believe Obama used Rubin as an “advisor” as well - but downplayed it after Citi hit the crapper in late ‘08 - i do recall thinking that when it came time to pick a Treas Sec, WS choices would have been Rubin, Summers, then Geitner - the latter 2 proteges of the former - but by then Rubins’ rep was considerably tarnished, and Summers had his own controversial issues, making both potentially hard sells for confirmation - so O was left with Geitner as the remaining “acceptable” choice - and that’s how we got a Treas Sec who was publicly revealed as filing somewhat dodgy income tax forms - LOL!
Have you read S. V. Date’s “JEB: America’s next Bush”? It explains my second point very clearly.
Read Ms. Prins’ latest book, “All the Presidents’ Bankers” referenced at the end of the article. It was worth my time and explained in detail just how screwed the 99% is.
Why did the Clintons put down roots in New York prior to leaving the White House, even though they had not previously lived in New York ?
Thats where the $$$$ are.
In collaborative complement The April economic update with Richard Wolf.
The left Forum is later this month in NYC
" Banksters will cut that funding if Hillary threatens any meaningful action that impacts the growth of their income."
BINGO! That is exactly why I have called Hillary a Wall Street whore!
It is really sickening when you look at the early presidential field. On the Republican side you have right wingers who believe in creationism and on the left you have Hillary who is in the pocket of Wall Street and the big banks. And the only candidate (Bernie Sanders) who might do something for the middle class doesn’t have a chance in hell of being elected. I am really disheartened by politics in America!
Your collective Stockholm Syndrome theory was exemplified when 98% of Americans who voted in the 2012 election voted for the Wall Street Democrat or the Wall Street Republican, with 2% of those who voted voting for one of the six more highly qualified third party candidates.
Well, yeah, if you have decided that money determines politics - then 3rd parties, with no money, are “guaranteed” to lose … i.e. they “can’t win”, which is nonsense, of course, - any one on a ballot can win if enough folks vote for 'em - but once one has decided something “can’t be done”, one doesn’t try to do it, which, of course means it won’t be done … ergo, self defeating …
Money influences politics greatly, no argument there, but it doesn’t, ipso facto, determine them - we do …
One of the major ways people effect change IS through whom they put in the offices with the power to legislate … and with regard to people’s choices - i have heard folks say, after they have heard, in one of the few times they get to hear, an alternate candidate - “I like him, he makes the most sense - but i won’t support him, because he can’t win …” It is peoples’ acceptance of essentially nonsense in the guise of what has been sold as “common sense” that gets in the way - and that is why I do believe such “common sense” memes need to be given the lie …
Let’s be honest…isn’t this what this is really about? Try to name me any politician running for president is is not or will not be the “banker’s best friend”. Winning takes cash and guess who has it in abundance thanks to politicians granting them a free ride, before and after the financial meltdown under Bush.
The only voices left in America are the rich and that’s who owns and runs the banks.
Really the question is backwards…it should not be titled “Clinton’s Banker Friends” it should be all the banker friends who are running for president. Then list them all.
Well, in '12, Jill Stein (GP Pres. candidate) was on enough ballots to get enough EC votes to win, one of only 4 candidates, including D/Rs, to do so … all we had to do was press those levers …
Yeah, actually we could promote them with a) social media b) regular hand delivered newsletters - informing folks about issues and about their alternatives … It could be done, but it would take shoe leather and elbow grease - if we are not up for that then yeah, I guess our alternative is to sit around and whine about money and media, and if that’s all we’re good for, then, methinks, we deserve what we get …