WHAT? HUH? Got a link for that....? is the late 1990's the ''old democratic era''?Old Democratic ideas like Glass-Steagall.....right. The kind Hilary's donors oppose.Wrong again, that's what the corporate media would like us to believe.I wouldn't count on it. The TV political pundits haven't been right about anything yet. I won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances.They say that now. But many of them might change their minds depending on the platform and what happens the over the next few months.
Then Sanders will end up campaigning for Hillary or subtley sabortage his campaign..He want to reshape the Democrats agenda, not lead them into the Whitehouse.
Actually, Sanders talked about this years ago. He talked about the ups and downs of running for the nomination and how an outside campaign is actually can reshape the agenda.
You don't need to win. You just need the party to agree with some of your ideas.
All his attacks are based on old Democrats ideas.
Free trade, campaign reform, a firm but cautious foreign policies---even breaking up banks. All old Democrats ideas and promises!
If anything, Sanders campaign is like the ghost of the Democrats past. Before they became the face of Wall street.
Legislative history
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier.[5][6] In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report that explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[7]
Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
Respective versions of the Financial Services Act were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.
During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[8]
The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343–86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[9][10][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[12][13][14][note 2]
Final Congressional vote by chamber and party, November 4, 1999
When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241–132 (R 58–131; D 182–1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[note 3]
The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[16][17] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90–8,[18][note 4] and by the House 362–57.[19][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[20]
The numbers show a President Clinton veto would have been over ridden...