I would work on her campaign tonight. The problem is, she does nto understand why it was a BAD IDEA that we need to ACTIVELY TURN BACK FROM.

Bill Clinton's signing of that bill versus a few days difference after a veto was probably the best move to make. It gave our side a little more time to set the new connection on as good course as might be possible to set.

Bill Clinton did not have a choice between a bill and no bill as the RW would infer and your post wrongly infers.

been veto-proof. This and so many other bad policies happened because many Democrats chose to vote with Republicans. I have never seen a Republican idea that was good for ordinary people in my lifetime. I am a Democrat because of THEIR ideas, policies that changed people's lives for the better. But I have learned over the past decade that many times Republican ideas get passed WITH the help of Democrats.

Now that many people are aware of this hopefully we can begin to change it. By supporting candidates who will actually FIGHT for what is right. I see no reason ever to 'compromise' with people who are causing so much harm to so many people.

The rescinding of Glass Steagal passed with only 7 Dem Senators voting against that bill and 1 Republican. Why did so many Democrats vote to do that? Have they ever been held accountable for MAKING it veto proof?

BTW, "Research" is stuff that sounds good, but may or may not be true.

Ok, now I know how MannyG feels when people who are defending a RW action get accused of being right wing. repealing GS was bad, all the way, and you know it.

And the point stands, if Hillary was to promise to put it back, I, veteran of the 2008 primary, would glaldy pick up her banner.

It's a hit on our brand to low information voters who tend to be our swing voters.

It's alright to be mislead. But, when truth unravels the lie, it's time to say it right -- not claim you're accused of knowing when you weren't accused of knowing.

I'd bet Bill and Hillary Clinton would like to get rid of GS, but it's not a question of wanting, it's a question of how to get rid of it. It has to come from the House. The House is Repub.

If you want to pick up a banner, every Repub in the House will have a Dem challenger. That's a lot of banners to choose from.

They did get rid of GS, and that is the PROBLEM. We need it BACK!

reverse the GLB Act reversal of GS, enact a new GS. (That and I shouldn't have had that last couple of drinks at the bar last night.)

My errant shorthand gave you an opportunity to emblazon a post against Bill and Hillary, and so you took that opportunity.

Your thinking that Hillary will do anything but crush the left, fatten the rich, and stomp on those who have already been stomped on. Yes, she is preferable to Jeb, but when you start measuring the beneifts of death by fire (GOP) versus doing 20 years to life (Clinton) you cannot pretend to offer a product worthy of praise.

Clap Trap. And all but seven Democrats in the Senate went along with that Right Wing legislation. Why did they do that? Have you Dorgan's speech at the time? Funny how he knew exactly what repealing that legislation would do and predicted accurately the end result of doing ten years down the road. He did what any Democrat should have done, he voted against that Right Wing garbage. Unfortunately he didn't have much support from his own party.

So I repeat, if Democrats started acting like Democrats, Right Wing Clap Trap would be a lot harder to get passed.

Are you denying the facts behind that legislation? Are you saying NO Democrat helped to get rid of GS?

Why did some Dems vote to drop GS? ... money.
What facts would I be denying? I have no idea what you might mean with that question.
Am I saying no Dems helped get rid of GS? No. Where did you even get that idea?

Dems fall for money sometimes. Repubs do it all the time.

It was pretty much already being ignored. In 1998 Citibank (a bank) was allowed to merge with Salomon Smith Barney(an investment house) by the Federal Reserve Board’s new interpretation of the Glass–Steagall Act.

President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate" and he signed the repeal know as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 into law.

All of the Republicans and just enough Democrats that trading, strong-arming and campaign donations could influence.

Jokes, partisanship, thanks for individual duty, ... stalling.

He applauds the American system of compromise without calling it such. He's slick, always has been. He can use the words it and that to mean what he wants instead of what others hear because they want to hear what they want to hear.

"Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate for the economy in which we live" Well, it isn't. It's been voted out. So, it's no longer appropriate.

He couldn't just come out and say it was bad. He'd have lost control of any further directions to be made around it.

But, it doesn't matter me because this is not the point I'm making. I'm saying it's wrong to blame Bill Clinton for signing a veto-proof bill. He's not responsible for it being veto-proof.

According to Senator Durbin,

"What for?"

Then they will say it was Freddy's Fanny or something like that...

We would have been fired for talking with someone who worked on the other side of the "chinese wall" that separated us, commercial banking, from the investment group.

The bank was by no means perfect back in the 70s but I believe everyone recognized the need for Glass Steagall. It's repeal is a big reason I'm not a Clintonista; they're corporatists.

It's a Clintonista every time.

I would like to see someone more left than Clinton or Obama, but, dang it, this is the real world.

I will votew for her. And if Obama can win the election, despite the fact that a bunch of democrats on the left and the right have always, and WILL always hate him, then Hillary should be able to do the same.

But just as the Hillary folk used every weapon of war, every labeling of someone as a "sexist", every demonization of the "young folk", then I will bring out every gun in ,my arsenal to make sure that someone to her left wins, or failing that, to make sure she knows that her survival depends on making affirmative, clear moves to the left, and that her failure to do so will result in agony!

Just a few months before election and all during the election that 10% rule went flat thanks to Bush's SEC placements. Loans bundled with insurance policies (CDOs, CDSs, CMOs) were as good as cash and became the new 10% in that old rule.

And, that rule was not reported in the press until October 2008, as the economy tanked, as the election loomed. Hardly anyone had time to comment.

That would be because the same thing happened to the 'media monopolies'. Mergers between television stations and radio stations used to be prevented by similar kinds of laws. They've been so weakened over the years that now; in some areas all of your news media might be owned by Bain capital.

It makes it difficult to make it known that it is even a problem.

They're all in bed together.

And they are both in denial about the role that repeal played in the 2008 crisis.

Here is another article about the crisis:

http://wallstreetonparade.com/how-the-new-york-times-hides-the-truth-about-wall-streets-catastrophic-misdeeds/

Hillary's fans can quote Forbes magazine till they're blue in the face. But they can't change history.

Which is bullshit. The banks and Bush caused 2008.