No matter what happens, no matter what she says or claims or insists, Hillary Clinton still fears Bernie Sanders and losing the Democrat nomination to him:
Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Monday that she supports tougher regulation of U.S. banks, after her rival Bernie Sanders accused her of being soft on Wall Street.
Stop the tape. If Weekend Bernie doesn't call her a Wall Street whore, does she rush to fire off this NYT op-ed? And does she mean a word of it, since Wall Street has been her biggest revenue stream after Middle East shiekhs and emirs? Answer: She'll mean it until a femtosecond after she's clinched the Democrat nomination, and then she won't mean it until a picosecond after she's elected, and thereafter she will or will not as the political needs of the moment dictate. That's how she rolls. And the Nutroots know it, which is why they hate her flabby guts and love Sanders so much. Which is why she's playing his moll now.
Writing in the New York Times, [Mrs.] Clinton said that if elected she would fight efforts from the Republican-controlled Congress to roll back reforms like the complex Dodd-Frank law designed to prevent a repeat of the devastating 2008 financial crisis.
Dodd-Frank was designed to exploit the "devastating 2008 financial crisis" the Democrat Financial Logic Bomb precipitated by fascistically nationalizing Wall Street and making the banks that were allowed to survive effective wards of the federal government. So of course a President Rodham would want to keep that gravy train rolling.
She said bank executives need to be held accountable, including by facing jail time for any financial crimes committed.
They don't now? I guess they must have the same legal representation and political connections that she does.
And she said she would empower regulators to break up any bank or non-bank financial institution that proves "too large and risky to be managed effectively."
Sport fishing with power saws. Although I find it difficult to believe she would take an anti-Wall Street jihad that far; broken feeding hands will heal, after all, but amputated ones don't, and she wouldn't deliberately starve her re-election campaign of all that life-giving protection money.
"As president, I would not only veto any legislation that would weaken financial reform, but I would also fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond Dodd-Frank," [Mrs.] Clinton wrote.
Communist nationalization, then? Lotsa luck with that one. Which tells me that's just "blue meat" to the Nutroot skeptics.
In fact, she said, "We need to further rein in major financial institutions," including closing what she said are loopholes that "still allow banks to make speculative gambles with taxpayer-backed deposits."
Still scapegoating "major financial institutions" for what the Democrat Party did to the U.S. economy in the run-up to 2008's Obamapocalypse, I see. I said at the time that leftwingnuts were going to get parsecs of mileage out of that caper, and I have yet to be disproven on that assertion.
I do think, however, that Barack Obama was a much better vehicle for that Marxist-Leninist message then, and Bernie Sanders is a much better vehicle for it now, than Hillary Clinton and her mountains of corruption and scandal baggage will ever be. I also think she knows it just as well. But what else can she do but parrot it to death and hope that Democrat voters can hold their noses until they bleed?