Home / Culture and Society / Clinton, Obama, and the Wall Street Fat Cats

Clinton, Obama, and the Wall Street Fat Cats

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest4Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Barack Obama would be so much better off if he weren’t so mean to Wall Street. 

Amazingly, that’s not an attack from one of the Democratic president’s GOP opponents. No, it comes from another Democrat, Bill Clinton, in the form of the former president’s new book, Back To Work. Clinton’s criticism of his fellow Oval Office Democrat is oblique rather than harsh: “Many of them [on Wall Street] supported me when I raised their taxes in 1993, because I didn’t attack them for their success,” but the dig is there nevertheless.

The problem is that the 42nd president’s defense of the Wall Street fat cats ignores too much. First, it ignores the role that the financial sector played in the 2008 financial meltdown. Folks aren’t attacking Wall Street for “their success,” Mr. Clinton. They’re attacking Wall Street because too many who helped drive the economy off a cliff got bailed out and have escaped punishment, or accountability of any kind.

Granted, Clinton wrote the words beforehand, but his pro-Wall Street stance ignores the work of two of those with whom he once worked most closely: strategist James Carville and pollster Stan Greenberg. The pair just last week presented findings that show the American people aren’t on Wall Street’s side, and why they aren’t.

Clinton, who was so obsessed by polls that, as president, once chose his family vacation destination based on an opinion poll, would do well to pay attention. Three-quarters of those surveyed by the Carville/Greenberg poll agree with a political message that says: “The big banks got bailed out but the middle class got left behind. Our economy works for Wall Street CEOs but not for the middle class. America isn’t supposed to only work for the top one percent.” The former Clinton advisers present this finding as just one data point of where the American people are in terms of attitude, and how Democrats could begin winning the economic message in the country.

Clinton’s knock on Obama as being too anti-Wall Street also ignores the fact that, actually, the president largely has sought not to be too anti-business. The fact is that, from Lawrence Summers and Bill Daley on down, the Obama administration has been populated with pro-business folks, who also, surprise, happen to be alumni of the Clinton administration. If anything, Obama has been too easy on Wall Street, not too hard. One can only hope that, under the daily encouragement of Occupy Wall Street, the president is beginning to change his tune.

Clinton also ignores the role he personally played as president in bringing on the 2008 meltdown and subsequent poor economy. Back in the rose-colored haze of the 1990s, Clinton signed a Republican deregulation bill which effectively repealed a law known as Glass–Steagall. Enacted after the Great Depression, Glass–Steagall imposed a firewall between retail banks and investment banks to prevent another financial crash. The banks had been pushing for repeal for years, and in 1999, Clinton was all too happy to go along. Elizabeth Warren, the former Harvard professor and ex-Obama consumer adviser who today is running a surging and populist campaign for Senate, lays much of the blame for the 2008 crisis on, you guessed it, repeal of Glass–Steagall.

Maybe Clinton’s still partying like 1999, but the rest of us are living in the world as it is in 2011.

Powered by

About Scott Nance

  • First right-headed take on OWS, Mr. Nance. You’ve still got a long way to go, shielding Obama by rather lame comparison with Clinton, a distinction without a difference.

    Still, it’s the first step. Perhaps your journalistic background holds you back.

  • Igor

    Clinton was more rightist than Reagan or Bush 1. He flattered himself to think that the Fat Cats accepted him as one of them (not true), and his over-weaning vanity was his downfall. I was hopeful that Obama was savvy enough and strong enough to resist their blandishments, but it looks like I was wrong. When those guys give you a peek into the safe (appearing) little world of ultimate power and control that they project it would take a saint to say ‘no’, and we’re fresh out of saints.

  • Clavos


  • Maurice

    It never pays to knock Wall Street (the Golden Goose). At least Clinton knew where the money was coming from. Obama is more clueless than Carter. The problem is we don’t have a Reagan to follow Obama to clean it all up. Not good.

  • [shakes pompoms @ Clavos]

  • Zingzing


  • Cannonshop

    Doc, put those englishmen down. (I think that’s right, “Pom” is supposed to be aussie slang for englishman, right?)

    #2 Igor, what have you been smoking? Reagan and Bush 1 both had opposition congresses run by the Democratic Party, Clinton had an opposition congress for the last six years of his term run by the Republican party-his policies in the first two years were what GOT him that opposition congress-they were significantly left of Bush 1, and FAR to the left of Reagan in those two years where he had a friendly Congress and Senate willing to rollerstamp anything he put up.

    Accusing him of being right-wing ignores the fact that for six of his eight years, he had to actually GOVERN under conditions where he could not afford to be an ideologically controlled little robot-leftist.

  • Maurice

    Cannonshop – well said.