THESE COMMENTS ARE BY YVES SMITH OF NAKEDCAPITALISM.COM.
And now some quotes. Just to underline what we aleady know:
*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*
*Clinton: “But If Everybody’s Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”*
(The email is a compilation of quotes from Clinton’s paid speeches, not otherwise available. It begins: “Attached are the flags from HRC’s paid speeches we have from HWA.” The asterisked material is how the Clinton campaign staffer “flagged” the quotes they considered dangerous.) Since these quotes are from paid speeches, we can expect Clinton’s private position — expect, that is, if we assume that Clinton isn’t cheating her clients by failing to deliver value for money in terms of services to be rendered — to be a more accurate representation of her views than her public one. In other words, we’re looking at a pitch to the donor class, when Clinton was laying the groundwork for her campaign. In an oligarchy, this would be natural.
I believe I’ve mentioned to readers that my vision of the first 100 days of a Clinton administration includes a Grand Bargain, the passage of TPP, and a new war. So you can read the following as confirmation bias, if you will.
On the Grand Bargain and Social Security (Morgan Stanley, 2013):
But Simpson-Bowles — and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today — put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to , we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we’re acting in good faith or not [!!].
Readers will of course be aware that the fiscal views intrinsic to Simpson-Bowles have been the perennial justification for Social Security cuts (“the progressive give-up formula”) and austerity generally. And if you think Democrat orthodoxy on SImpson Bowles has changed, see Robert Rubin today (below). If you buy Simpson-Bowles, you buy Social Security cuts. The policy is bad enough, but “depending upon whether we’re acting in good faith or not” is, to me, the real mind-boggler.
On trade (Banco Itau, 2013):
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *”My dream is a hemispheric common market, with , some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
On “green,” see Clinton below on climate change. On trade, anybody with a “dream” like that will not surrender TPP lightly.
On war, Clinton said (Goldman Sachs, 2013):
Hillary Clinton Said One Of The Problems With A No Fly Zone Would Be The Need To Take Out Syria’s Air Defense, And “You’re Going To Kill A Lot Of Syrians.” “So we’re not as good as we used to be, but we still—we can still deliver, and we should have in my view been trying to do that so we would have better insight. But the idea that we would have like a no fly zone—Syria, of course, did have when it started the fourth biggest Army in the world. It had very sophisticated air defense systems. They’re getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.” [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]
And speaking of beating the war drums, there’s this gobsmacking quote on climate change (tinePublic, 2014):
Clinton Talked About “Phony Environmental Groups” Funded By The Russians To Stand Against Pipelines And Fracking. “We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.” [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]
Wowsers. I wonder what 350.org thinks about that?