Whether she obeys or not, progressives are about to find out if Wall Street money really does influence the Democratic Nominee

Wall Street has threatened Hillary Clinton over her possible VP pick. Hillary has been directly threatened by her Wall Street donors over the possibility of Elizabeth Warren being chosen as Clinton’s Vice Presidential candidate.

In fact, these donors have said in a recent Politico piece that they will abandon Hillary all-together if she chooses Warren to be her Vice President. What happens going forward will only confirm progressive suspicions of Hillary or perhaps cast those suspicions aside. At this point it seems a real challenge has been placed at Hillary’s feet by the power brokers of her campaign.

The piece in Politico had several Wall Street donors state on record that Hillary dare not pick Warren to be her VP or they will withdraw their support. The language is not very subtle, and in fact reveals the exact arrogance and corruption of the political system that progressives have been pointing out for a while now.

It is abundantly clear that Wall Street despises Elizabeth Warren, and it seems they are going to make the VP pick a test for Hillary. It’s amusing how many Hillary supporters claimed Bernie supporters were wrong for thinking that financial contributions would influence her decision making. We were called radicals and loons and that we had no evidence that her decisions were based on who funded her campaigns. If we didn’t have evidence for it before (which we did) then we may certainly have it soon.

The ball is now in Hillary’s court. If Hillary does pick Elizabeth Warren, or a comparable progressive, to be her VP then it could possibly change the left’s view of Hillary. This is certainly true after the recent Politico article, and if Hillary did break with her donors and picked a progressive like Warren then it does show perhaps that Hillary could be an independent actor from her donors.

If, however, Hillary does not choose a progressive like Warren and picks a more centrist/establishment candidate, then it is pretty clear at that point who is really calling the shots in Hillary’s camp.

At the very least, the Politico piece reveals the mechanics of how our electoral system really works. Now that they are convinced Bernie Sanders is no longer a threat to Hillary or them, they are bluntly stating what they expect from Hillary. It’s fair to say these are more than expectations, but rather demands. What they mainly expect from Hillary is a deal with Republicans in Congress and “tax reform.” In other words, they want Hillary to cut a deal with Republicans to get their taxes lowered (again).

How funny is it that when Bernie implied that Hillary would have to adopt some of his platform to draw his support and the support of his voters, he was called a sexist for making “demands” to Hillary. Yet, here are these Wall Street fat cats demanding Hillary do what they say, threatening her, and I haven’t seen a single Hillary supporter or surrogate say a peep.

The establishment media has barely even covered this story. Where is the outrage, the cries of patriarchal sexism? I mean, how dare these elitist men tell the first potential female president who she can and cannot pick for VP, right? Something tells me I shouldn’t hold my breath in waiting for feigned outrage here.

For the Hillary supporters reading this, don’t you see now what progressives meant when they said our political system is owned by corrupt corporate oligarchs, and that Hillary is meshed within that system? This is the most blatant exercise of the corrupt system yet, and the coming weeks will either confirm or overturn expectations about Hillary. At this point, I desperately hope Hillary does pick Warren or someone like her as her VP, just to spite Wall Street and their arrogance.

If Hillary does pick Warren, then it could give the left hope that maybe there is a way to reach Hillary. If Hillary does not pick Warren or a progressive like her, then all bets are off. If that is the case, and Hillary cowers to her donors, then there is no hope. If she is more worried about appeasing Wall Street then with connecting to the will of the American people, then once again Democrats have been duped into voting for a Wall Street puppet.

Hillary supporters, ask yourselves; should Hillary take orders from these characters, or should she set the standard? As of now, the signs are not promising. Are you going to stand by and let these robber-barons command Hillary around, or are you going to be as vitriolic against the fat-cats as you were against Bernie and his supporters?


  1. Julian…. There is another interpretation of this circulating, which to me makes much more sense.

    It is based on the Premise that removing Warren from the Senate is the desirable outcome of Wall Street’s gambit. Follow me >>

    1) Elizabeth Warren retaining her senate seat is NOT a preferable option, as she commands too much power and ability to cause havoc.

    2) By presenting this supposed Wall Street desire, as a Demand, it gives Clinton “Street Cred”, by being able to claim she stood up to Wall Street and chose Warren anyway…. This would have the added benefit of being a 2-card Monty dupe for Bernie Supporter’s on the fence about supporting her.

    3) I say it’s a 2-card Monty, because in reality, the VP position is Constitutionally powerless and strictly a President-in-Waiting figurehead, who’s only real job (aside for breaking the exceptionally RARE tie in a Senate vote) is to Shut-Up and do whatever the President tells the VP to do!!
    When asked to Jump… the ONLY acceptable response is “How High??”

    4) If Warren is elected as VP, then her Senate Seat is likely to fall to a Republican appointed by the Massachusetts Republican Governor… as it did when Ted Kennedy died.

    5) So, by naming Warren, and Warren accepting (not a guarantee), Clinton can rid herself of a major thorn, and pander to Progressive voters with an meaningless gesture… all at the same time.

    This is the same duplicitous Clintonian thinking as that which explains why Hillary does NOT care about Bernie’s influence at the Convention or over the Democratic Party Platform… Clinton Knows that the platform is also meaningless (just like the VP) words on paper that NO President is bound to, and that can disregarded immediately they are Nominated!!

    • I hear your point, and believe me I’m still on the fence about whether the VP should be Warren. The caveat I use is “Warren or someone like her”, as I do agree it may not be so clear cut of an idea to choose Warren. Historically, yes the VP is a rather powerless position, and I have faith that Warren cares enough about her principles that she wouldn’t allow herself to be trapped in a powerless position.

      However, Wall Street does seem to be rather spooked by the idea of Warren being in the administration, especially if they are threatening to pull all of their support over a nominee to a supposedly powerless position. Also, the counter argument would also be, wouldn’t you prefer a progressive to be in the room when (if) Hillary makes those big decisions. Sure it might not mean anything, but we have a better chance of pushing Hillary toward our positions with progressives in the room.

      I’m still torn, and more or less I would want Hillary to pick a Warren-esque VP just to spite the arrogant robber-barons on Wall Street who are now comfortable with making commands in the open. On the one hand Warren might be more useful in the Senate, yet it seems Wall Street is rather spooked by the idea of her being in the White House so that has to count for something. I don’t have high expectations of Hillary, but it would be interesting to see her break with the donors for once. We shall certainly see…

      • That is the point… It would be Nice if a “Progressive could be in the Room”… But There is absolutely NO guarantee that Clinton would allow that to happen, or any way that Warren could force herself into a situation where she was excluded… Clinton “could” (and I believe “would”) simply ignore Warren!! She has no necessary value in Clinton’s calculations after the election.

        However, in the Senate, there is a chance that she could become the next Majority Leader, or even the Whip… and she would always be able to speak her mind without being under the thumb of Clinton. She retains her power, and visibility!! As VP, Clinton could put her on a Global Good-Will tour of every single nation in perpetuity!! Out of Sight… Out of Contact… Out of Mind!!

  2. Hillary supporter here

    Bullshit article mate. Just because she might not go with warren doesn’t mean anything. She’s not the only worthy candidate. I worry that an all female ticket would scare off a lot of men. Castro and booker are great and will benefit her more. Warren would have more power in the senate as we are seeing now

    But I expect you to ignore this and find some flawed argument. You already imply that warren is the only candidate who is worthy, sounds like you are sour grapes and are just trying to shame her into a consolation prize with warren

    *sips tea*

    • Author here,

      It was never implied Warren would be the only “worthy” candidate. In fact the article contained the caveat “Warren, or a progressive like her.” There are other progressives out there that would be just as good as Warren for VP. If Hillary picks someone like Booker or Castro, two pro-establishment and friendly to Wall Street characters, then the most likely reason is that Wall Street spooked her to make that decision, which would then mean Hillary is more worried about appeasing her donors than with listening to progressives. Occam’s razor, the simplest answer to a problem is usually the correct one. Also I’m shocked to hear a Hillary supporter say they would have an issue with an all-woman ticket. You guys cried sexism against Bernie and his supporters for Bernie daring to suggest that Hillary adopt some of his platform to gain the support of his voters. Now that these elitist men on Wall Street are directly threatening your candidate, you seem to be taking the opposite attitude then you guys did with Bernie. I used to believe the point that Warren would be more useful in the Senate, and still do to a certain degree, yet after the Politico article was released showing how scared Wall Street is of Warren being VP, it seems that a progressive like Warren could have some significant influence in the White House that the robber-barons don’t want to be there. You’re not dealing with the actual fact of the matter here, and instead are doing nothing but forming excuses toward the obvious. It’s amazing, even when the writing is on the wall, some Hillary supporters refuse to accept it. Hillary doesn’t have to pick Warren, but if she stacks her deck with Wall Street hacks like Corey Booker, then it is fairly obvious why. Go ahead and sip your tea, plug your ears and cover your eyes while you’re at it. If Hillary continues to sideline progressives in favor of pro-establishment/Wall Street types, then good luck getting progressives to vote for you come the fall…

      • No, her picking the candidate would mean she thinks that person can get her the most votes. Is this your first election? I don’t have a problem with an all woman ticket, I’m thinking about overall in America sexism still exists despite what bubble you live in. All you are doing here is grasping at straws. Her not picking warren is her decision and despite what your small mind can comprehend she is not owned by Wall Street. Can you name some legislation she passed as a senator that would indicate she was? Bernie couldn’t during a debate (because there isn’t), can you? I think we will be doing just fine in the fall, you think her base is smaller than it is but quite the opposite. Despite all her flaws she still BLEW sanders out in this primary. She has about 4 times the pledged delegate lead Obama had going into the convention and this race was over back in March. For how flawed and biased you are against her, kind of shows how much America rejected bernies ideas when Hillary blew him out

        Thanks for taking my bait 🙂

        • I realize you have an over-inflated ego and self-assurance of your own wit, but allow only a nanosecond of common sense to sink in please. Sure, it is Hillary’s decision, yet it amazes me that you would ignore an obvious connection to Wall Street corruption after knowing what you learned here. Have you heard of the Bankruptcy Bill she voted on when she was first elected to Senate, the one she originally urged her husband not to support until Wall Street financed her Senate campaign? Surely a well educated and inflated personality like yourself who knows Hillary front and back should know this, right? I’m biased against our candidates being bought by Wall Street, and if her decision boils down to picking another pro-Wall Street hack, then it will be clear as to why. Warren is more than qualified, and there is no reason to suspect that having Warren would hurt Hillary among progressives, so then why not choose her? What would make Booker or Castro any better? Could it be maybe Wall Street likes them better than Warren? There’s no other objective reason not to pick Warren, or someone like her. Your bait is sour, and you should really stick to the facts rather than resort to the classic ad-hominems so common among people who have no real point of defense. Your anointed one will have a choice to make, and it will be her’s to make. Will she actually listen to progressives and do something to attract them into her fold other than contrast herself to Trump (which is like choosing a slow or quick demise), or will she continue to cower to Wall Street donors who have described themselves as “her base”? She doesn’t have to pick Warren, but if she continues to ignore the progressives of her party, then she’s going to have a lot tougher time then you think come November.

          • If I had an overinflated ego I would be running hit pieces on candidates i don’t like (sound familiar?) Surely someone as educated as you knows the history of the bankruptcy bill right? She advocated for it for womens issues on it back in 2001. When it came up in 2005 were taken care of so she was against it then. You’re really sad trying to grasp and cherry pick details in order to support your bias. Want to try naming something else that would show that she bends over for wall street? You’re 0/1, next? What makes Warren more qualified? She hasn’t been in politics the longest, so what is your standard? The point of the VP is to help draw voters that the candidate can’t otherwise get. Surely someone as educated as yourself understands this?. Trumps remarks towards latinos and women have solidly given her the edge in that demographic so having a white male on the ticket with his record would help more than removing warren from the senate to draw in the 20% or so bernie or bust crybabies like yourself. Your entire article and your comments here just prove that you have a bias against her and no amount of evidence will change that. Your head is buried in the sand. Hillary will do just fine without the 20% or so bernie or bust crybabies considering the bipartisan support she receives


  3. Not picking Warren doesn’t mean she’s in the pocket of Wall Street. Just because Wall Street said they’ll remove their support if she does, doesn’t mean if she doesn’t it was because of Wall Street. That is a basic logical fallacy. If A then B doesn’t imply not A then not B. She won’t pick her because she has a better chance of winning with someone else.

    • Have you ever heard of Occam’s Razor before? The simplest answer to a problem is usually the correct one. While sure it is not 100 percent certain that she would reject Warren because of Wall Street, yet, especially after these direct threats to her, it seems more likely to be the reason. Elizabeth Warren is pretty popular, especially among progressives, and Hillary needs a way to get those voters excited rather than just saying she’s better than Trump. If Hillary doesn’t pick Warren or a progressive like her, it is more than likely due to Wall Street influence. It seems you are grasping at straws and formulating complex excuses rather than objectively looking at the reality of our electoral procress.

  4. There is no way Hillary would choose Warren for VP. That choice would wreck her Wall Street support, period. And she must have Wall Street support. She’s not a nice honest person!!! How long until all voters admit to this??

Leave a Comment