Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Windfall

Source: New York Times

In the halls of high finance, Hillary Clinton’s stock seems to be rising.

In the latest quarter, Ms. Clinton tapped into a gusher of donations for her presidential campaign from employees at the major investment banks. According to an analysis by Bloomberg, she picked up $748,896 from workers at Wall Street firms from July to September, which is more than the combined amount raised by Barack Obama, Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney from those sources. It is also a switch from the second quarter, when Mr. Obama was the top Wall Street fundraiser, pulling in $739,579 to Clinton’s $424,545.

Judging from his recent take, Mr. Obama, the Illinois senator, is losing cachet on the Street. His donations from investment-bank employees in the latest period came to just $177,456.


Read more: http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/hillary-clintons-wall-street-comeback/?hp

who is buying. Bet they don't give Kucinich anything.

it is disturbing and beyond the pale.

They are betting on who they think will win. If Obama, Edwards, or even Kucinich was leading in the polls like Hillary, he'd get the money.

Wall St is betting on Dems this time.

Choosing Hillary over Rudy is like putting lipstick on a pig. And that my friends will be your choice next year in November. I'll pass on my opportunity to vote.

Look at that:

Senator Clinton - $748,896

Senator Obama - $177,456

Senator Clinton brought in MORE money than The Ghoul Guiliani and Mitt Romney COMBINED!

This is great, it shows that the Financial people trust Senator Clinton to do right by the economy and business, which is crucial.

The woman is on a roll....she's GREAT, I like her a lot.

The woman rocks!

It illustrates that Wall Street ISN'T afraid of a President Hillary Clinton, and that's wonderful news.

It also illustrates that the Financial people are tending to see Senator Clinton as a far better option than The Ghoul Guiliani and Mitt Romney....Lol! The Republicans sort of like to babble about how bankers and whatnot trust them more.

I guess W messed that up for them, considering the past seven years the GOP has ABANDONED the policy of fiscal responsibilty and instead chose to go down the road of MASSIVE deficit spending, like drunken sailors out on a credit card binge.

You shouldn't be making that sort of comment about her.

Btw, I will make any comment about her that I choose to. (As long as I follow DU rules.)

Btw, do you vote in THIS country?

Ben Bernanke and the rest think she's the 'cat's meow."

Doesn't that make you wonder?

And stock speculation outlawed?

stands for anymore. I'm old enough to know when the party was more or less progressive and didn't pander to Wall Street. Using the yardstick of the old party, the new party is right wing - the DLCers and the Clintons moved the party rightward in order to 'win,' but what have we won? We've become corporatists too. What an achievement!

We WANT to win, we WANT to win the 2008 Presidential Election.

Why do we?

Because the alternative is WORSE that's why.

So yeah you're right, we WANT to WIN.

What's wrong with wanting to win exactly?

even if we have to abandon every principle we ever had to do it! :sarcasm:

Because losing just ain't an option.

look at what you won...and see George Bush and Dick Cheney staring at you and your house has been robbed and the debt possession people are ready to throw you out on the street because you borrowed for college and have thousands in debts but just lost your job to India or China...and your condo is in default for mortgage payment lapses...and you had to have a root canal or had a strep throat and no health insurance and you can't afford to marry your partner or even have a kid...because your debt is so bad...and there's no way you can see out of this even with your great education and all that effort...

Then...I'd say what is WINNING doing to the rest of AMERICA? George Bush and Dick Cheney and the NeoCons they rode in on WON! But WHAT HAVE THEY WON?

HUH? :shrug: TELL ME???? What is WINNING ALL ABOUT?

I'd like to think that electing a democratic president is more about ideas and principles. I want to wake up the day after the election knowing more than 'my team' won -- I want to wake up knowing the country is in good hands, and that democracy will be restored and the concerns of the poor, workers, and middle class will be front and center, etc. I want to feel assured that my country will get along with the rest of the world and that the pentagon will be cut down to size, liberating funds for wacky democratic ideas like real health care, education reform, re-building our infrastructure, etc. You know, old fashion democratic ideas. Yes, Hillary will be marginally better than the repukes, but I fear she will not be good enough at this critical time in history. (And believe me, I so want a woman prez -- just not her.)

My take on corporate money going to Clinton is that they believe that the Republicans have a chance to win if, and only if, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. It is sort of like Republicans in Connecticut voting for Joe Lieberman to ensure his victory over the real Democratic candidate Ned Lamont.

The Republican candidates are so lackluster that many Republicans and independents would seriously consider voting for an acceptable Democrat or staying home. A moderate Republican friend of mine disliked Bush enough that he voted for Kerry in 2004. If Kerry had campaigned better in "red" states, he might have won enough of them to make the stealing of Ohio by Republicans irrelevant. The "anybody can beat Bush" mentality in 2004 brought us four more years of Bush/Cheney.

The same mentality is operating in the 2008 campaign with Clinton. The Republicans are viewed as being in such disarray that we can push through anybody we want. Nonsense! Clinton is so polarizing that she would bring out the right wing in such numbers that we could not only lose the presidency, but Congress as well.

The corporations are giving her the big donations because, if she becomes the Democratic candidate, they win whatever happens. Most likely she will lose and the big guys get eight more years of Republican rule. If by some fluke she wins, they own her big time and she gives them most everything they want. (Remember hubby Bill pushed through NAFTA.)

So, maybe she doesn't give them everything they want. She gives them 90 percent of what they ask for and saves a few crumbs for the serfs. Big deal! This country is so deep in a hole already, thanks to Bush/Cheney, that crumbs aren't going to improve anything enough to make a difference.

whether or not she'll do right by the economy might depend on what tax bracket you fall in.

privatize Social Security? That would do it.

Whenever has she EVER said that she wants to privatize Social Security?

but she would make a private commitment. Do you honestly think Wall Street would veer from Obama to Hillary in the numbers quoted above if it did not think she had its best interests at heart?

It's been an open secret here for as long as I can remember that Wall Street wanted those funds for investment purposes. With the economic forecast looking so bleak, do you honestly think that the renewed outcries to "fix" Social Security have NOTHING to do with renewed demands from Wall Street for politicians to take its interests to heart? If the answer to that question is a "yes", there's nothing more I can say to convince you. But from all appearances, she and Bill have had a stranglehold on the DLC since he was elected President, and it is that entity which many Democrats hold responsible for the party's swing to the right. Just double-check some of its statements over the past few years.

That Senator Clinton, under no circumstances would privatize Social Security....for instance, when W and the GOP were bleating on about privatizing Social Security, did Senator Clinton support it? No....so I see no reason, if elected President, she'd suddenly decide that she wanted to privatize Social Security.

Why would Wall Street veer from Senator Obama to Senator Clinton....perhaps because Wall Street can feel in it's water that Senator Clinton's going to win, that's my guess.

This is the print preview: Back to normal view »

BIO
Thomas B. Edsall
The Huffington Post
Defense Industry Embraces Democrats, Hillary By Far The Favorite
October 17, 2007 11:07 PM

Read More: defense industry, Defense Industry 2008, defense industry democrats, fundrace, Breaking Politics News
Politics

The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.

An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.

Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.

Insofar as defense workers making political donations reflect the interests of their employers, the contributions clearly suggest that the arms industry has reach the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed. Since their profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts, companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House.....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html?view=print

Stocks rise under Democratic rule, fall under the Republics. For once, they're acting a little smarter than usual.

I was gonna go on with some observations about corporate Democrats and DLC pandering to the rich, but, what th hell? In the interest of not offending my deluded countrypersons who support Hillary, I'll let it pass.

Wall Street knows damn well that they do well when there is a strong and vibrant economy, when peoples income rises, when people are employed, when poverty and crime go down...

The last President who managed to achieve such a result was one William Jefferson Clinton...and obviously they believe Hillary is the best positioned to duplicate and hopefully surpass those results...

and that's the end of the story on her and her hubby. They had their chance and American People have been there and done that once. They aren't going to do it again. We already had Bush I & II...

Fool Me Once....Fool Me Twice... Americans may seem stupid...but it's that they are tolerant which can pass for stupidity. "Give the Person a Chance" is what Americans have prided themselves on. But when the manager of the team keeps losing over and over...they kick their butt out. We've had the same managers for a long cycle now. Time for some new blood.

This simply donate to whoever they feel has the best odds of winning. It's just a numbers game, it has nothing to do with one candidate or the other being more in their pocket. Simply consider the fact that Obama was the one they were donating too earlier when he was perceived to have a better chance.

It's a lot more fun to be shrill and knee-jerk and talk about 'corporate whores' and how there's no difference between Clinton and republicans.

:)

His (Obama's) donations from investment-bank employees in the latest period came to just $177,456.

As long as he takes the money, his only complaint is that his fundraising is less effective. He hasn't sworn off the cash, has he?

Dirty money is dirty money. Don't complain just because you got less of it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ajK1PQvX6tk4&refer=home
"The New York senator brought in $748,896 from the firms in July through September, compared with $177,456 for Obama, an Illinois senator.
The former first lady ran even further ahead of top Republicans, led by Giuliani, who brought in $149,925, and Romney, who raised $133,875, federal regulatory filings show."

"Clinton's and Obama's take on Wall Street represents a switch from the second quarter, when Obama, 46, raised $739,579 and Clinton followed with $424,545. The top Republican recipients, Giuliani, 63, and McCain, 71, each received a little more than $330,000 from the same group of top banks in that quarter."

edit: link