

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
With that midterm election out of the way, media are spending even more time talking about the 2016 presidential race. And one of the themes is how Hillary Clinton will create distance from the Obama administration's record.
With that midterm election out of the way, media are spending even more time talking about the 2016 presidential race. And one of the themes is how Hillary Clinton will create distance from the Obama administration's record.
Along those lines, Politico has a piece (11/11/14) by William Cohan that lays out a strong case that Wall Street (and its money) is more excited about her than Obama. But Politico falls down when it tries to argue that that Obama has been unusually tough on Wall Street.
Under the headline "Why Wall Street Loves Hillary," Cohan lays out a pretty persuasive case that the finance industry has strong feelings for Clinton. The implication is that they don't feel so close to Obama, and there's evidence to bear this one: He took in far less in campaign donations from Goldman Sachs in 2012 than he did in 2008.
The problem with Politico's analysis is how it miscasts Obama's approach to Wall Street:
During a speech last December at the Conrad Hotel, in New York, her message could not have been more different from Obama's hot, anti-Wall Street rhetoric: "We all got into this mess together, and we're all going to have to work together to get out of it."
It's not totally unusual to read about Obama's supposedly tough rhetoric. But what are they really talking about? Cohan tries to spell it out here:
By 2009 the bloom was off the rose. In an interview with 60 Minutes, Obama not only referred to Wall Street as the "fat cat bankers" but also blamed Wall Street for causing the financial crisis. "People on Wall Street still don't get it," he said. In July 2010, just weeks after a much-vilified Goldman agreed to pay a $550 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission-then the largest fine ever-to settle charges stemming from Goldman's underwriting and selling of a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, the details about which the SEC believed Goldman had failed to properly disclose to investors, Obama joked at the White House Correspondents Dinner: "All of the jokes here tonight are brought to you by our friends at Goldman Sachs. So you don't have to worry-they make money whether you laugh or not."
So the evidence is Obama making a comment on 60 Minutes and apparently blaming Wall Street for the economic collapse. But while financiers would no doubt rather be referred to as "entrepreneur/philanthropists" than as "fat cat bankers"-a phrase that did not become a regular part of Obama's vocabulary-there is little doubt that Wall Street does in fact deserve a major share of blame for the financial meltdown. It's peculiar to classify a commonplace observations about the world as "hot rhetoric."
And there's the fact that Obama made a joke about Goldman Sachs' profitability-at a dinner where presidents make jokes!-right after the company just paid out a massive settlement for the kind of behavior that helped fuel the economic collapse.
In other words, this is not exactly a strong case. And the weird thing is, several paragraphs later, the Politico piece admits as much, in its own way:
Where Obama blamed Wall Street--not inaccurately--for behavior that caused the 2008 financial crisis and championed new Wall Street regulations like the Volcker Rule and the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that really stick in the craw of money men--all while presiding over a veritable profit boon for the financial industry--Clinton said hardly a word on the topic of Wall Street shenanigans.
So it's not that Obama was right to say that Wall Street crashed the economy; to Politico, he was "not inaccurate."
The story here, of course, is that Wall Street sees Hillary Clinton more favorably than Obama-something you may have read about it this summer in the New York Times (7/7/14). But Politico shouldn't therefore suggest that Obama has been especially tough on them, rhetorically or otherwise.
UPDATE: The bigger question, of course, is not Obama's rhetoric, but his actions-most notably his administration's failure to hold Wall Street executives responsible for the widespread fraud that helped bring down the economy, and his appointment of financial industry alums like Lawrence Summers and Jack Lew to key economic posts.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
With that midterm election out of the way, media are spending even more time talking about the 2016 presidential race. And one of the themes is how Hillary Clinton will create distance from the Obama administration's record.
Along those lines, Politico has a piece (11/11/14) by William Cohan that lays out a strong case that Wall Street (and its money) is more excited about her than Obama. But Politico falls down when it tries to argue that that Obama has been unusually tough on Wall Street.
Under the headline "Why Wall Street Loves Hillary," Cohan lays out a pretty persuasive case that the finance industry has strong feelings for Clinton. The implication is that they don't feel so close to Obama, and there's evidence to bear this one: He took in far less in campaign donations from Goldman Sachs in 2012 than he did in 2008.
The problem with Politico's analysis is how it miscasts Obama's approach to Wall Street:
During a speech last December at the Conrad Hotel, in New York, her message could not have been more different from Obama's hot, anti-Wall Street rhetoric: "We all got into this mess together, and we're all going to have to work together to get out of it."
It's not totally unusual to read about Obama's supposedly tough rhetoric. But what are they really talking about? Cohan tries to spell it out here:
By 2009 the bloom was off the rose. In an interview with 60 Minutes, Obama not only referred to Wall Street as the "fat cat bankers" but also blamed Wall Street for causing the financial crisis. "People on Wall Street still don't get it," he said. In July 2010, just weeks after a much-vilified Goldman agreed to pay a $550 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission-then the largest fine ever-to settle charges stemming from Goldman's underwriting and selling of a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, the details about which the SEC believed Goldman had failed to properly disclose to investors, Obama joked at the White House Correspondents Dinner: "All of the jokes here tonight are brought to you by our friends at Goldman Sachs. So you don't have to worry-they make money whether you laugh or not."
So the evidence is Obama making a comment on 60 Minutes and apparently blaming Wall Street for the economic collapse. But while financiers would no doubt rather be referred to as "entrepreneur/philanthropists" than as "fat cat bankers"-a phrase that did not become a regular part of Obama's vocabulary-there is little doubt that Wall Street does in fact deserve a major share of blame for the financial meltdown. It's peculiar to classify a commonplace observations about the world as "hot rhetoric."
And there's the fact that Obama made a joke about Goldman Sachs' profitability-at a dinner where presidents make jokes!-right after the company just paid out a massive settlement for the kind of behavior that helped fuel the economic collapse.
In other words, this is not exactly a strong case. And the weird thing is, several paragraphs later, the Politico piece admits as much, in its own way:
Where Obama blamed Wall Street--not inaccurately--for behavior that caused the 2008 financial crisis and championed new Wall Street regulations like the Volcker Rule and the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that really stick in the craw of money men--all while presiding over a veritable profit boon for the financial industry--Clinton said hardly a word on the topic of Wall Street shenanigans.
So it's not that Obama was right to say that Wall Street crashed the economy; to Politico, he was "not inaccurate."
The story here, of course, is that Wall Street sees Hillary Clinton more favorably than Obama-something you may have read about it this summer in the New York Times (7/7/14). But Politico shouldn't therefore suggest that Obama has been especially tough on them, rhetorically or otherwise.
UPDATE: The bigger question, of course, is not Obama's rhetoric, but his actions-most notably his administration's failure to hold Wall Street executives responsible for the widespread fraud that helped bring down the economy, and his appointment of financial industry alums like Lawrence Summers and Jack Lew to key economic posts.
With that midterm election out of the way, media are spending even more time talking about the 2016 presidential race. And one of the themes is how Hillary Clinton will create distance from the Obama administration's record.
Along those lines, Politico has a piece (11/11/14) by William Cohan that lays out a strong case that Wall Street (and its money) is more excited about her than Obama. But Politico falls down when it tries to argue that that Obama has been unusually tough on Wall Street.
Under the headline "Why Wall Street Loves Hillary," Cohan lays out a pretty persuasive case that the finance industry has strong feelings for Clinton. The implication is that they don't feel so close to Obama, and there's evidence to bear this one: He took in far less in campaign donations from Goldman Sachs in 2012 than he did in 2008.
The problem with Politico's analysis is how it miscasts Obama's approach to Wall Street:
During a speech last December at the Conrad Hotel, in New York, her message could not have been more different from Obama's hot, anti-Wall Street rhetoric: "We all got into this mess together, and we're all going to have to work together to get out of it."
It's not totally unusual to read about Obama's supposedly tough rhetoric. But what are they really talking about? Cohan tries to spell it out here:
By 2009 the bloom was off the rose. In an interview with 60 Minutes, Obama not only referred to Wall Street as the "fat cat bankers" but also blamed Wall Street for causing the financial crisis. "People on Wall Street still don't get it," he said. In July 2010, just weeks after a much-vilified Goldman agreed to pay a $550 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission-then the largest fine ever-to settle charges stemming from Goldman's underwriting and selling of a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, the details about which the SEC believed Goldman had failed to properly disclose to investors, Obama joked at the White House Correspondents Dinner: "All of the jokes here tonight are brought to you by our friends at Goldman Sachs. So you don't have to worry-they make money whether you laugh or not."
So the evidence is Obama making a comment on 60 Minutes and apparently blaming Wall Street for the economic collapse. But while financiers would no doubt rather be referred to as "entrepreneur/philanthropists" than as "fat cat bankers"-a phrase that did not become a regular part of Obama's vocabulary-there is little doubt that Wall Street does in fact deserve a major share of blame for the financial meltdown. It's peculiar to classify a commonplace observations about the world as "hot rhetoric."
And there's the fact that Obama made a joke about Goldman Sachs' profitability-at a dinner where presidents make jokes!-right after the company just paid out a massive settlement for the kind of behavior that helped fuel the economic collapse.
In other words, this is not exactly a strong case. And the weird thing is, several paragraphs later, the Politico piece admits as much, in its own way:
Where Obama blamed Wall Street--not inaccurately--for behavior that caused the 2008 financial crisis and championed new Wall Street regulations like the Volcker Rule and the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that really stick in the craw of money men--all while presiding over a veritable profit boon for the financial industry--Clinton said hardly a word on the topic of Wall Street shenanigans.
So it's not that Obama was right to say that Wall Street crashed the economy; to Politico, he was "not inaccurate."
The story here, of course, is that Wall Street sees Hillary Clinton more favorably than Obama-something you may have read about it this summer in the New York Times (7/7/14). But Politico shouldn't therefore suggest that Obama has been especially tough on them, rhetorically or otherwise.
UPDATE: The bigger question, of course, is not Obama's rhetoric, but his actions-most notably his administration's failure to hold Wall Street executives responsible for the widespread fraud that helped bring down the economy, and his appointment of financial industry alums like Lawrence Summers and Jack Lew to key economic posts.