Not so sure about this.. Any president, no matter how progressive or anti establishment will have to deal with Wall Street and 'the establishment'. He (or she) will have to build relationships with those groups in order to push through any changes. There's no point in living in an imaginary world where a knight in a shining armour will appear who won't even talk to Wall Street, Republicans and establishment Democrats and, yet, somehow manage to change the US for better. Was Obama the perfect president? Not really. Was he awful? Not even close. Should we aim to elect candidates that will progressively limit the power of Wall Street? Absolutely. But more Obama, Hillary or any other hate does no good, no matter how comfortable living in the hate bubble feels.
I'm not sure if you read the article or just the first paragraph. This article wasn't even about Obama's $400,000 check for a wall street health care speech.
It's all in exactly how a president 'deals' with Wall Street. Rejecting corporate Democrats, especially Diet Republicans like Obama and Clinton, is the only way an actual progressive like either of the Roosevelts even takes office. Clearly, and I think this is the point this article makes well, you can't win for losing. Electing people to the right of Eisdenhower and Nixon may be one way to win, but it's definitely how to lose.
Not so sure about this.. Any president, no matter how progressive or anti establishment will have to deal with Wall Street and 'the establishment'. He (or she) will have to build relationships with those groups in order to push through any changes. There's no point in living in an imaginary world where a knight in a shining armour will appear who won't even talk to Wall Street, Republicans and establishment Democrats and, yet, somehow manage to change the US for better. Was Obama the perfect president? Not really. Was he awful? Not even close. Should we aim to elect candidates that will progressively limit the power of Wall Street? Absolutely. But more Obama, Hillary or any other hate does no good, no matter how comfortable living in the hate bubble feels.
I'm not sure if you read the article or just the first paragraph. This article wasn't even about Obama's $400,000 check for a wall street health care speech.
It's all in exactly how a president 'deals' with Wall Street. Rejecting corporate Democrats, especially Diet Republicans like Obama and Clinton, is the only way an actual progressive like either of the Roosevelts even takes office. Clearly, and I think this is the point this article makes well, you can't win for losing. Electing people to the right of Eisdenhower and Nixon may be one way to win, but it's definitely how to lose.