The Vice President Delivers a Statement in the Rose Garden

Bernie Sanders—That Larry David Guy Just Might Make It in Comedy

Political News

The Free Press WV

Lincoln Chafee quits Democratic presidential race

The former senator and governor from Rhode Island failed to get any traction in the race that now includes an even smaller field of Democratic competitors after Jim Webb dropped out earlier this week and Vice President Biden announced he would not enter the race.

This has been the best week of the Clinton presidential campaign

After Hillary won the first debate, Joe Biden declared he would not challenge her on Wednesday. Then Thursday she tamed House Republicans during an 11-hour appearance before the Benghazi panel. The trio of big wins gives her big momentum going into tomorrow’s Jefferson-Jackson Democratic Party dinner in Des Moines.

If she had stumbled at the debate, Biden jumped in and/or a bombshell dropped during her congressional testimony, the race for the White House could look very different. Instead, 100 days out from the Iowa caucuses, HRC is as much the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination as ever.

Here are eight reasons why the former Secretary of State emerged not just unscathed, but stronger, from her marathon Benghazi testimony

“1. The GOP landed no solid punches. In a striking moment after the hearing adjourned at 9 p.m., committee Chair Trey Gowdy told reporters he learned nothing new from Clinton’s testimony. “I don’t know that she testified that much differently today than she has in the previous times she’s testified,” he said. Outside the cloakroom late last night, many Republicans were subdued. My colleague Bob Costa relays that there was no celebrating and, privately, many admitted Clinton was formidable.

2. Clinton looked like a fighter, something the Democratic base craves. One of Hillary’s problems is that primary voters in the early states think she lacks fire in the belly (that’s part of what Bernie Sanders is tapping into). Yesterday, Clinton looked more like a David throwing rocks than a Goliath wearing armor.

3. Clinton rose above the political fray. Hillary didn’t appear to be testifying for a Democratic primary audience, leaving the political points to her Democratic counterparts on the committee (who repeated many of the same talking points being pushed by her campaign).  She sat, looking bemused while Gowdy and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings clashed heatedly during the most dramatic moment of the hearing. She appealed for “common ground” and “statesmanship” on foreign policy, an effort to clean up her declaration during last week’s debate that Republicans are her “enemy.”

4. Clinton became a sympathetic figure when the Republicans badgered. GOP Representative Mike Pompeo was ridiculed, including by conservative thought leaders, for pressing Clinton on whether Ambassador Chris Stevens had her personal e-mail, cell-phone number, Fax number, or home address. The Kansan’s argument that Clinton friend Sid Blumenthal had more access to Clinton than the Libyan ambassador looked ham-handed. Alabama Representative Martha Roby got mocked online for asking Hillary if she spent the night alone after the Benghazi attack. When Hillary laughed, Roby did not understand why and became upset.

5. Clinton committed no made-for-TV gaffe. Hillary clearly prepared carefully, and it showed. This was the strongest of her three congressional appearances related to Benghazi. Most importantly, she avoided giving her opponents the kind of devastating soundbite that she did two years ago when she told Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), waving her arms: “What difference, at this point, does it make!?” That line remains a staple of Republican stump speeches. There was no parallel yesterday.

6. Clinton did not seem evasive, which could help with her trustworthiness problem. Sitting there and taking every question made Hillary look transparent, especially after the spring scandal over her failure to turn over e-mails and the summer stories about refusing to give interviews to the national media. Remember, George W. Bush only agreed to speak with the 9/11 Commission for one hour – and in private. Under oath, Clinton could have been exceedingly cautious about what she revealed. But, precisely because she is a presidential candidate, she was surprisingly expansive.

7. Clinton looked presidential. She vigorously defended her State Department record and showed her understanding of foreign affairs She came across as serious and dignified and her presence filled the room. She recounted in grueling detail the chaos and uncertainty of the night of the attacks: “This was the fog of war,” she said dramatically. In perhaps the most powerful moment of the day, she declared: “I would imagine I’ve thought more about what happened than all of you put together. I’ve lost more sleep than all of you put together. I have been wracking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done.”

8. The 67-year-old showed impressive stamina. Not counting the breaks, Hillary (who turns 68 on Monday) spent more than eight hours testifying. She has a pretty intense campaign schedule for today. The hearing was so newsless that conservative media outlets turned toward minor details: The Drudge Report leads this morning with a Weekly Standard item about a coughing fit Clinton had in the final hour of her testimony. But bottom line: Clinton’s endurance was impressive.

Democrats to stay with Benghazi investigation

House Democrats will remain a part of the House Select Committee on Benghazi despite strong opposition to what they describe as panel Republicans’ effort to damage Hillary Clinton in the presidential race, a senior Democratic aide said on Friday.

During a meeting with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Democratic members of the Benghazi panel made the decision to remain on the panel for now, the aide said.

The announcement came less than a day after Clinton testified before the Benghazi panel in a marathon, 11-hour hearing in which Republicans failed to land serious blows against the Democratic presidential front runner. Some Democratic members of the committee, including Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), had raised the possibility that they might leave the committee.

Clinton’s testimony was seen as a milestone for the 17-month-old House Benghazi investigation. A spokesman for committee Republicans did not respond to inquiries earlier in the day about what they plan to do next in the investigation.

Democrats “may decide that now, defending the truth, their job is done, they’re going to move on,” Pelosi told reporters earlier Friday. “I have to talk to them and see what risk they see if we would walk away because we see the distortion, just the really disconnect with reality that exists on that committee.”

Watch Kids Act Out The Best Moments Of The First Democratic Primary Debate

Bernie Sanders Playing The Bongos

Clinton vs. Sanders vs. O’Malley On Fixing Banking

How do we fix Wall Street, a.k.a. “the banks”? How do the candidates compare? This question came up in the first Democratic debate and there has been lots of online commentary on this since.

The first place to look, of course, is CAF’s Candidate Scorecard. “The Candidate Scorecard measures the positions of Democratic candidates for president against the Populism 2015 platform endorsed by organizations representing 2 million Americans.” On Wall Street – specifically, making “Wall Street serve the real economy” – the Candidate Scorecard rates the candidates as follows:
● Bernie Sanders: 100%
● Martin O’Malley: 100%
● Hillary Clinton: 63%

Note that Clinton’s 63 percent rating is primarily based on not having a position on a financial transaction tax – “Has yet to take a position, though has used rhetoric against high frequency traders who game the system” – as well as opposing reinstating some form of a Glass-Steagall Act and a lack of specific proposals related to the categories “Break Up Big Banks” and “Affordable Banking.”

Meanwhile, Sanders rates 100 percent. No one doubts Sanders’ determination to break up the big banks and protect 99 percent of the country from the excesses of Wall Street and “the billionaires.” But what if Clinton’s proposals will have the same positive effect as reinstating Glass-Steagall and breaking up the big banks? Paul Krugman at The New York Times, Democrats, Republicans and Wall Street Tycoons, writes that Clinton’s position might be as good as Sanders’:

For what it’s worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t.

[. . .] If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress, which isn’t likely to happen for a long time.

In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they’re trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans.

Krugman later writes that we can probably trust Clinton on this, because Wall Street is mostly giving money to Republicans these days.

Mike Konczal at Next New Deal, agrees with Krugman on the merits of Clinton’s policies, in “Structural Reform Beyond Glass-Steagall“:

My opinion is that reinstating GS isn’t an important goal for financial reform. I don’t think the story it tells is the one we want to tell, and the reforms it would bring aren’t particularly effective. I think in terms of structural changes, there are better aspirational objectives for the debate to focus on and better options for achieving those objectives. In particular, breaking up the banks through higher capital requirements would meet the same goals while building on the work that has been done—work that is already showing significant success and could use more of a spotlight.

[…] My general thought since the crisis has been that we should be extending the regulatory environment of commercial banking to shadow banking. … The goal, then, should be to expand that regulatory structure out into shadow banking while weakening the economic and political power of the largest players.

I don’t think reinstating GS would help with this. If separating investment banking from commercial banking split the regulatory structures, it would be a move in the wrong direction. If it didn’t, it’s still not clear that there would be much to gain for all the energy spent.

However Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone, in “Hillary Clinton’s Take on Banks Won’t Hold Up,” writes,

… First, it’s definitive now that Hillary has no intention of reinstating Glass-Steagall. [CNN’s Anderson] Cooper gave her a prime opportunity Tuesday night to announce otherwise, stories have filtered out of her campaign that she has no plans along those lines, and she’s explicitly stated that she wants to find a “different way” to reduce risk.

The second and probably more important observation is about Hillary’s rhetorical choices.

Clinton, like her close adviser Barney Frank, the former Massachusetts congressman and co-author of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, has been pushing an idea that banks aren’t at the root of any financial instability problem. Last night, she pointed a finger instead at “shadow banking,” non-bank actors like AIG, and a dead investment bank in Lehman Brothers. (Interesting she didn’t mention a still-viable investment bank like Goldman Sachs, which has hosted her expensive speaking engagements.)

Taibbi looks at Clinton’s proposals and finds a few weaknesses. He points out that there are and have been regulatory tools but they are not used. But Clinton’s plan gives regulators leeway, and wonders if we can trust her administration to crack down and enforce.

But my reading of her proposal is that it doesn’t contain an automatic mechanism. Hillary’s plan would merely give regulators the authority to do something about risky companies.

“Clinton did say large firms should be required to ‘downsize or break apart,‘” says Dennis Kelleher of the Wall Street watchdog group Better Markets. “But only if they can’t prove to regulators that they can be managed effectively.”

It’s a subtle difference. But such subtle differences between real action and ambiguous verbiage are what turned the Dodd-Frank bill into a mountain of legislative leprechaun tricks, as opposed to the sweeping, simple, FDR-style reform of a plainly corrupt marketplace that it should have been.

Whether or not you think Hillary Clinton plans on doing anything to fix Wall Street corruption really comes down to your read on her intentions.

So Taibbi says it all comes down to trust that a Clinton administration will enforce the rules – something we haven’t seen an administration do for decades. The Obama administration notoriously refuses to criminally prosecute banks and bankers. Instead they impose fine that are paid by shareholders and not the executives who did bad things. The Bush administration’s famous lack of enforcement brought us the financial collapse. The Wall Street-friendly Bill Clinton administration repealed Glass-Steagall. (His Treasury Secretary then left to head a firm created by that move – and received hundreds of millions of dollars for it.) But Krugman says maybe we can trust Clinton now because Wall Street lately is giving most of its money to Republicans.

Most of the public discussion has been focused on the top two contenders, but Martin O’Malley’s proposals also merit consideration. O’Malley says he has “independence” from Wall Street that Clinton does not. On” The Daily Show” on Monday, O’Malley

… accus[ed] the former senator from New York of being too close to Wall Street to protect Americans from the “excesses” of big financial institutions.

“I believe I have the independence to actually get that done, and I do not believe that Hillary Clinton does,” Maryland’s former governor told the show’s new host, Trevor Noah.

O’Malley’s position paper stresses enforcement and anti-corruption steps for regulators.

As President, Governor O’Malley will change the culture of our regulatory and oversight agencies and departments by immediately pursuing the following reforms to ensure that Wall Street megabanks don’t get to play by their own set of rules. He will provide real deterrents to recidivist behavior among the worst actors on Wall Street.

Martin O’Malley explains how to make an honest buck on Wall Street:

It Comes Down To Trust

Which Democratic candidate will take on the banks? They all have proposals that increase regulation and give voice to breaking up the biggest banks. But will their administrations enforce those as well as existing regulations if elected?

● No one doubts that Sanders, with his 100 percent Candidate Scorecard rating is independent of Wall Street and potential regulatory capture – his net worth after 25 years in the Congress is around $330,000 and that includes his residence – and will be extremely tough both with policy and enforcement.

● O’Malley is stressing his positions on and independence from Wall Street. He also has a 100 percent Candidate Scorecard rating and solid proposals. His position paper stresses enforcement. His net worth is less than $256,000. (“That’s after subtracting the $339,000 in student loans that he owes for his daughters’ college educations…”)

● Clinton is offering a comprehensive plan to bring the big banks under control. She has also offered a “revolving door” plan that goes after bonuses from Wall Street firms and delays for three years any lucrative compensation for people who leave government after doing favors for the companies that might hire them. But her own net worth is between $15.3 million and $55 million, and this does not include the assets of her husband Bill. Much of this is from giving extremely lucrative speeches to Wall Street firms (for which some of the proceeds are donated to the Clinton Foundation). Yet Krugman says we can probably trust her to enforce the rules because Wall Street isn’t giving her any money now.

It all comes down to trust. Which candidate do you trust to regulate the big banks and bring in people who will enforce the rules?

~~  Dave Johnson ~~

“Back to the Future Part II”

Click Below for additional Articles...

Page 369 of 407 pages « First  <  367 368 369 370 371 >  Last »

The Gilmer Free Press

Copyright MMVIII-MMXVIII The Gilmer Free Press. All Rights Reserved