Sensing dissatisfaction from the left wing of the party, Democrats aligned with Hillary Clinton are mounting an extensive effort to burnish the presidential candidate’s populist bona fides—an effort slightly complicated by the fact that two of the first three fund-raisers the campaign is hosting in New York are at the homes of hedge-fund executives.

A number of Clinton allies downplay the idea that Senator Elizabeth Warren—an icon of the left who routinely rips into the nation’s biggest banks on the floor of the Senate—is more progressive than Clinton. In a report in The New York Times, friends and advisers of Clinton paint her as the proto-Warren, highlighting Clinton’s earlier comments about income inequality.

One Clinton friend even referred to Warren as a “footnote” in a 16-page report obtained by the Times.

That’s already a familiar move—last week, former congressman Anthony Weiner slammed New York City mayor Bill de Blasio for refusing to endorse Clinton until she lays out her platform. Weiner said that Clinton has been a progressive longer than de Blasio, who has emerged as a leader on the national left. “She [was] working on a progressive vision of health care when Bill de Blasio was still smoking pot at N.Y.U. or wherever he went,” said Weiner, who is married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Clinton insiders who have been with the family for decades recall a time when the then First Lady was routinely attacked for progressive positions. It’s also true that the early stages of Clinton’s 2016 campaign have included a number of rebukes of Wall Street and hedge funds.

But is the Clinton of 2016, flush with cash from a post-White House career of giving paid speeches to financial institutions, a true progressive icon in the form of Elizabeth Warren?

Clinton donors in the financial sector have already said they believe Clinton’s rhetoric to be merely political posturing, a belief that’s given extra weight by news that some of Clinton’s first fund-raisers will be at the homes of hedge-fund managers. In a break from Barack Obama’s strategy, the Clinton campaign is accepting money from lobbyists and political action committees.

Clinton’s position, as explained by campaign chair John Podesta, is that she simply has no choice. Clinton has called for a constitutional amendment against so-called dark money in politics, but, as Podesta said, the financing available to the her Republican opponents is too much to counter without serious fund-raising.

“If you’ve noticed how much money is coming at us, the Koch brothers pledging almost $900 million to be spent in this election, Ted Cruz raising $30 million for a super-PAC in two weeks,” Podesta said. “I think that our judgment was we will take money if it’s legal, obviously.”

“If it’s legal, obviously” isn’t the most Elizabeth Warren-sounding quote ever, but perhaps it’s close enough. Despite the all-star effort to draft Warren into the campaign, she has said she will not run for president.