People bashing Wall Street forget the following :
(a) we (the electorate) have busily shaped the societal and legal environment in which Wall Street could become what it is now. Republicans have always vigorously supported business *in all of its facets) and Wall Street, with Democrats coming in closely behind. That policy has served us well, but is now starting to show some cracks. Time to figure out the minimum change required to fix that. That requires ingenuity. Lots of people see their personal interest compromised (job loss, no perspectives, feeling of not being needed by society, etc.), get "as mad as hell" and demand instant action. Well, they won't get it. Not with either candidate. One tells then they won't get instant gratification (but more of the same instead), the other does (sort of), but is so obviously clueless that his word is worth nothing.
(b) the idea of "Give Enterprise a Free Run and only regulate when the body count becomes too high to ignore" is part and parcel of our society and our culture. There certainly is a lot of anger and an appetite for "change", but I still can't get my head around what it actually wants. It's not prepared to accept the consequence that more prevention means less freedom. Being proactive with policy, (or even enforcing existing laws aimed at e.g. environmental protection) is violently opposed (sometime literally with guns in hand). Take for example that Bundy fellow. In violation of federal laws. Lost several court cases. Shouts his head off in the counterculture media, assembles a band of rogue hillbillies that actually point guns as federal officers. Is cheered on by a certain segment of society, and actually gets away with it. Unlike a steady trickle of you-know-who's who are shot dead in or near their car by police officers for making a false move or not complying fast enough or clearly enough with officers' commands..
(c)" Wall street is the nexus of how we as a country manage wealth. It's a giant market that can (and does) set a price on goods, services, policies, and lives. In doing that, it is a forum that co-shapes a certain part of our national decision making. In that sense it's what has always set the US apart from e.g. the Soviet Union (plan economy) or China. You don't steer or reform a market like that by dropping corporate taxes to 10% as some Republicans (among which a presidential candidate) propose, prohibiting municipalities from offering public services that compete with private enterprise (think broadband initiatives), or annulling wide swaths of environmental protection laws. You might be able to steer it by imposing regulations. Not so much regulations on how it's supposed to trade, but laws that regulate what it's trading in. Well
(d) It so happens I would have preferred Sen. Sanders to be the Democratic candidate. Or at least see a substantial part of his views acted upon and some of his policies enacted. But there is simply no support for that. The inertia of mainstream politics (well, lets be thankful for that) and Wall-street related views. So it's compromise time. We're going to get a much more business-friendly candidate. Oh, and in case anyone wishes to cavil about Wall Street's influence on politics, remember the rulings those fine Conservative gents on the Supreme Court handed down? Companies have now assumed much the same rights as people (see e.g. the "Citizens United" and the "Hobby Lobby" ruling [ http://www.motherjones.com/pol... ]) to air political views and to have "religious" sensibilities. Business had enormous influence on politics before, but this makes it official (and expands it enormously).
(2) In my opinion, Wikileaks have now left the path of "public service" and either taken the one of "trying to impact an election just to get some limelight" or outright politics (as in selling publicity and mindshare to interested parties).