... not have Wells Fargo - or any other banking institutions - sponsor the Democratic convention.

if ever a company deserved the death penalty, they are it

You do realize that Clinton fought to keep Glass-Steagall right? He Vetoed its repeal once, but they had the votes to override his veto so rather than be over ridden and have a full repeal he cut a deal to keep some important parts of it in exchange for his signing it. The Republican Congress repealed Glass-Steagall, Bill Clinton tried to save it, but Congress had the votes to over ride him.

and many of his advisors, including Robert Rubin, were very much for repealing it.

Here is BC defending his vote, even as late as 2015 with the hindsight of the crash behind him: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/250838-bill-clinton-defends-repeal-of-glass-steagall

I've got nothing in particular against Bill Clinton. I voted for him twice and quite like a lot of other things that he did. But this was a huge mistake on his part.

then these compromises will be based on Democratic principles. We really need to understand what is and is not possible based on power politics. Much of the criticism of Clinton/Obama completely overlooks what is and what is not possible

but do you think that automatically means the banks will be constrained? There's really no evidence to suggest that.

Dodd-Frank did more to reign in banks than any law in a century.

This is another failed attempt at false equivalency. Dems believe the banks play a vital role in our economy, but believe they should have rules to keep them from running wild. Reps believe the US population should be subject to scams of every type by large banks, that's just part of the free market to them. There is no comparison.

i was comparing politicians who will do something substantial to regulate banking fraud versus those who won't. DF was great as far as it went, which was not far.

The republicans, as you note, are completely hopeless.

Until we get money out of our process, people with money have more "speech."

the paradox is we have to find a politician(s) who can take the banks' money to get elected, and then be brave enough to disappoint them and start decoupling money from elections.

The problem starts at the local level. We need legislators at all levels of gov't to have a less business friendly posture.

The real solution is in Congress and the States.

but the President can be a leader by talking about the problem and supporting solutions. That's a place to start.

And of course we need to support congresspeople who understand the problem we have with big money.

the Koch brothers, Paul Ryan, and the like.

Paul Ryan is the ultra hypocrite, since he is in Congress, solely elected to represent the voters of his district, and what does he do? He crams down an Ann Rand economics course down his voters' throats because he thinks it is the best (and what's even worst, there has never been a Ann Rand economy anywhere in the world, because it won't work.)

Instead of representing Americans, They seem intent on cramming these political/economic methodologies down our throat, with their money. It's sad that they think this, since I would think if a thing was popular, then you wouldn't have a spend a dime in order to spread the word about it.

Makes one wonder, eh?

they are pretending to believe in something because it allows them to steal more money.

Despite social mobility being really low compared to "class bound" countries like the UK and wages being reduced over decades (compared to inflation etc) people think they have a chance to win the "lottery" of success.

FDR was such a politician, and his reforms worked perfectly well with the American Dream mythos.