Wall Street to Clinton: Our money or Elizabeth Warren as VP.

[cali]

Note: It's my understanding that as of today, there is no more GD-P. This is simply a news article; it is not criticizing HRC.


Big Wall Street donors have a message for Hillary Clinton: Keep Elizabeth Warren off the ticket or risk losing millions of dollars in contributions.

In a dozen interviews, major Democratic donors in the financial services industry said they saw little chance that Clinton would pick the liberal firebrand as her vice presidential nominee. These donors despise Warren’s attacks on the financial industry. But they also think her selection would be damaging to the economy. And they warned that if Clinton surprises them and taps Warren, big donations from the industry could vanish.

“If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her,” said one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton. “They would literally just say, ‘We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can’t trust you, you’ve killed it.’”

Most big donors don’t want Warren on the ticket because she is the most accomplished anti-Wall Street populist in the Democratic Party. But many also think her presence would drive a potential Clinton administration too far to the left, poison relations with the private sector from the start and ultimately be damaging to the economy.


<snip>

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/20/

[peace13]

1. Plunk....

...the sound of Warren and her career after this debacle ends. I have always admired Elizabeth Warren for her brains , ideals and enthusiasm. I fear she jumped without her parachute.

[frazzled]

4. Always?

She's only been in a public role since 2008--some 6 years, and in an elected government position for fewer than 4. I'm Liz's age, so 6 years seems like a very short time for "always." I hope you don't admire the 46 years she spent as a Republican.

Look, there are a lot of reasons Elizabeth Warren won't be the VP pick, so this Wall Street rumoring is merely one:

1. Two women on a ticket
2. Two women in their later 60s.
3. Two women both from the Northeast.


It was never going to happen anyway (at least, I think).

[peace13]

8. I don't care if she is chosen. The damage is done to her career and that is my point.

I don't vote by gender alone. Don't care. The best candidate may be a sexless wonder (no offense to sexless wonders) that sees each life as a gift to be protected and to go un squandered. The best candidate will protect the interests of all Americans first and global corporations last.

I don't know why you feel the need to preach to me about how long I have known about EW or if that is a lifetime to me. This is the kind of attack that is totally unnecessary! I don't owe you an explanation of what I think a long time is! Warren always seems to have the best interest of the American people in mind when dealing with banks and corporations. Hillary always seems to be concerned about what a corporation might do for her. I don't get why Warren would consider being VP with Clinton. It makes no sense!

Bringing up that Warren was a Republican is an issue how? Hill was a Republican. I was a Republican as a young person. Gulp...who knew?

Have fun beating your friends up when the plug is pulled.

[bvar22]

17. Damage?

I consider it a validation and honor to be disliked by Wall Street.
To me and millions of others, this just enhances Warren's creds as a Senator who fights for us...
you know, people who Work for a Living.


You will know them by their enemies.

[peace13]

31. You misinterpreted my concerns.

I'm more in the 'chose your friends wisely'camp. It seems to be working for her so no worries.

[frazzled]

20. I think ...

You need to take a look at your tag line, perhaps. There was nothing I can see in my post that could be construed as an "attack" on you personally, and certainly none was intended. Yours, however, sounds raging mad, and quite probably violates the new terms of service.

But I say, peace be with you.

[adigal]

9. Really?? If we got more Warrens in, then Wall Street would be the ones fearful

that they can't crash the economy, get bailed out, and give themselves bonuses worth tens of millions of dollars.

Assholes.

[peace13]

14. Clinton has no desire to make Wall Street fearful.

Follow the point. Clinton does not equal Warren. Way to use the A word when you are having trouble following the point! Rude x 1000.

[adigal]

32. What are you talking about? I was rude? What an odd response!!!!!

Do you even understand what I said?

[cyberswede]

2. HRC should tell them to fuck off. nt

[adigal]

10. I agree...against Trump, who is self-imploding, does she really need Wall Street money??

If she refused it, I'd send her money, and I hadn't planned on doing so.

[bjobotts]

25. Agreed big time

[bjobotts]

24. Makes no sense since Warren does more damage as a senator than she ever could as VP besides

Her states republican gov would replace her senate position with a republican which may keep the senate in their hands.
Makes me wonder if it's one of those "Oh please don't throw me in that briar patch" situation. Warren should stay where she is and run for president in 2024...and Clinton should refuse to move to the right as president. She doesn't need wall street banker money because of the clown buffoon know nothing fraud she is running against. Trump is self destructive and will hang himself on a daily basis while he holds Trump steaks in both hands. (see what I mean)

[joshcryer]

3. Theater.

Elizabeth Warren made quite the pro-bankster argument when she pointed out that banks are undervalued because they're too big. Breaking them up makes them more valuable. The banksters want this to happen, but they want the government to do it so that when subsidiaries fail, and they will fail, they won't get blamed. They want the government to break them up and then clean up the mess.

Elizabeth Warren is Wall Street's dream.

And if Clinton chooses her it'd be the greatest play ever. Because way way too many liberals think Warren is some kind of enemy to capitalism.

[mdbl]

7. I never thought she was an enemy of capitalism

just crooked capitalism. There is a difference.

[bjobotts]

26. Actually it's 'unregulated' capitalism. Warren is definitely NOT Wall street's dream since she

stands for regulating the banks and their wall street buddies.

[joshcryer]

29. A government facilitated breakup could be crooked.

The question would be if anyone got golden parachutes for it.

[think]

34. The banks are already CROOKED. TBTF banks were convicted of rigging markets among other things

What do banks need to do to be too corrupt to be allowed to continue being crooks?

Rigging of Foreign Exchange Market Makes Felons of Top Banks

By MICHAEL CORKERY and BEN PROTESSMAY 20, 2015

For the world’s biggest banks, what seemed like the perfect business turned out to be the perfect breeding ground for crime.

The trading of foreign currencies promised substantial revenues and relatively low risk. It was the kind of activity that banks were supposed to expand after the 2008 financial crisis.

But like so many other seemingly good ideas on Wall Street, the foreign exchange business was vulnerable to manipulation, so much so that traders created online chat rooms called “the cartel” and “the mafia.”...

Read more
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/business/dealbook/5-big-banks-to-pay-billions-and-plead-guilty-in-currency-and-interest-rate-cases.html?_r=0

How The Obama Administration Is Helping Big Bank Felons

By Shahien Nasiripour - 08/11/2015 04:24 pm ET | Updated Aug 11, 2015

So much for that tough talk about holding Wall Street accountable for its crimes.

With the blessing of the White House and the Justice Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is attempting to sneak through a major policy change that would enable big banks convicted of felonies to continue lending through a federal mortgage program, according to federal records and government officials.

The housing agency wants to quietly delete a requirement for lenders to certify they haven’t been convicted of violating federal antitrust laws or committing other serious crimes. HUD proposed the move on May 15, without detailing the reasoning behind the change. It’s now considering public comment, with an eye towards finalizing the proposal...

Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-hud-big-banks_us_55c4f2f2e4b0923c12bcc4b1

[joshcryer]

35. A government facilitated breakup would soften the blow.

Bad assets would be bought out or resold at bargain prices, etc. It would be just like the GM breakup, with the government holding all the cards.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. I can see where this is headed, if Warren

Isn't choosen it's further "proof" that Hillary is in the tank for Wall St.

[Chan790]

37. Hardly...

sane people realize political calculus is a thing.

Now, if she chooses some Wall St. stooge, or Tim Kaine, or Cory Booker...the criticism would be justified by actual proof in Hillary's choice.

[longship]

6. Why would anybody want Elizabeth Warren as VEEP?

First, she is an incredible US Senator. Why would any sane person want to remove her from that position? And no! VEEP may be president of the US Senate, but an actual US Senator gets to actually speak and vote. The VEEP just presides (when she chooses) and only votes on a tie.

I cannot support Elizabeth Warren for VEEP for that reason. She is far more valuable as the MA Senator than she could ever be as VEEP.

Case closed.

[Wounded Bear]

11. Yeah, what he said...nt

[BootinUp]

15. Agreed. nt.

[cali]

19. I agree.

[Saviolo]

21. A hundred times this.

She's such an excellent asset to Democrats, liberals, and progressives in the Senate standing up to the big banks. Wall Street -should- want her as VP where she has less influence and voice, so this seems like political posturing.

[justiceischeap]

12. Part of me thinks they're using Warren as a trial balloon

To see how the public (polls) react to the idea of a two-woman ticket. If it polls well, then they look for a female candidate that is as "left" as Warren is without actually picking Warren. Someone from a swing state with "progressive" credentials.

Of course, they could also be using her to poll a more "progressive" candidate and her gender is just secondary.

Clinton really seems to think she can turn Texas so Wendy Davis may be an option no one has considered.

[Chan790]

40. Davis would be a terrible choice. There is a much better TX-focused choice.

I get that a lot of people here are enamored of Davis for her courageous stand (as am I)...but her subsequent race was rather demonstrative that she's a poor campaigner and a political lightweight. She's not politically adept enough to ever win even a blue Texas...she'd be a Palin level disaster on a national ticket.

Her race against Abbott was interesting for the wrong reasons...she managed to out-sleaze Greg Abbott, something I didn't think was possible...and given every opportunity to demonstrate who she was: progressive, moderate, Texan, feminist, Obama supporter, running away from Obama, pragmatic, idealist, or otherwise...she failed to stake out a consistent identity.

She had every opportunity Democrats in Texas have been able to muster within the last 20 years, if any capable Democrat could win, that was her opportunity...and she lost. She lost badly...badly enough that people called it the death of the TX Democratic party; her political career deserves to be ended for it.

If that's the direction Clinton wants to go...Cecile Richards would be a much better choice. She's smart, she's progressive, she brings "not a politician" outsider-cred to the ticket, she's a talented activist capable of compellingly laying out a vision and experienced debating difficult and contentious issues. The religious right would hate it and it would force Trump to keep talking about an issue (abortion) that he's clearly trying to avoid and can't really stake out a consistent position on without sounding both insincere to his RW supporters and like an asshole to everybody else. At the same time, Richards has weight in TX because she's the daughter of Ann Richards and can talk about Clinton as President being part of the legacy of her mother's career-long fight to break glass ceilings.

Texans love Ann Richards...even the conservative ones.

Richards moves TX to a state we can contest...Davis probably moves it further from winnable, just like she did in her gubernatorial race.

[hughee99]

13. If Wall Street wants to keep Warren out of the way, VP is the BEST place to put her.

As a senator she has the freedom and forum to do as she pleases. As VP, her job is to advance the goals of the administration, which would be whatever Hillary tells her they are.

I don't believe this story they're floating. I think Wall Street wouldn't mind marginalizing Warren, and I think Clinton would like to show that she's not in Wall Street's pocket. This story allows both to get what they want.

Come on, is anyone really concerned that Warren is going to have too much influence over Clinton?

[Saviolo]

27. Maybe it's a con...

A little game of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose.

If Hillary goes against Wall Street, they get to withdraw their funds, her PACs run dry, and they get Warren out of the Senate where she's standing up to the big banks.

If Hillary doesn't tap Warren, the narrative continues to be how she's in Wall Street's pocket.

I still hope she stays in the Senate to continue standing up to the big banks, because she's far more important there than as VP.

[RoccoR5955]

16. I guess that this rules her out

for any cabinet position as well. We wouldn't want to upset the banks. After all, they are considerable donors.

[tblue37]

18. I don't want Warren in the VP slot the ticket, either, because she is more powerful and

more valuable in the Senate. The VP is mostly a ceremonial slot. She has a lot more power and visibility in the Senate, and we need her to stay there.

I sure hope Hillary doesn't choose Tim Kaine. I suspect she will tap Julian Castro, though I think he could stand to get more experience and more seasoning before being made VP.

The reason I am thinking Castro is that he gave the keynote speech at the last DNC. That is what they do with someone they are grooming for a future presidential bid. Clinton, Kerry, and Obama each gave the keynote at the convention during the campaign season directly before running for president.

Also, Trump has so alienated the hispanic vote that there has been a rush among hispanic immigrants to get naturalized and registered to vote, and including Castro on the ticket might be seen as a way to encourage even more immigrants to get naturalized and more hispanic citizens to get registered and to get out and vote.

OTOH,the campaign might figure that Trump himself is a sufficient motivation to increase the hispanic vote, so that it might be better to choose a VP who could motivate another voting bloc.

I just hope Hillary doesn't fill her VP slot and her cabinet with senators, governors, or other powerful pols from various states, leaving their offices open for Republicans to fill. Here in Kansas, we lost Sebelius to Obama's cabinet and we have never recovered from the extreme right wing takeover of the state. Especially I hope she doesn't pick a senator from a state with a Republican governor who would then be able to place a Republican into the empty seat. We have a chance to regain the senate majority, so it would be beyond foolish to give up a senate seat that way.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Hillary could call their bluff. They won't fund Trump because he is a doofus. Her choice, still. . n

[George II]

23. The thing is "big wall street donors" can't give more than $2700.

[ismnotwasm]

33. Yeah--this the third time I've seen this article

It hasn't improved in apparent veracity

[Bonhomme Richard]

28. Good. She can do way more damage to them in the Senate. n/t

[BainsBane]

30. Regardless, I prefer Xavier Beccera

But fuck Wall Street, and I'm all for Warren continuing to tell them off. I hope she plays some prominent roll in the Clinton administration, whether by helping develop regulatory policy and getting it through congress, or something more formal.

[jcgoldie]

38. After Brexit

I really don't see how Wall Street bails on Clinton regardless. They may not like Warren but Trump's foolishness and unpredictability has to make the marketeers cringe.

[davidn3600]

39. I would think Wall Street would love Warren as VP

It gets her out of the Senate and essentially sidelines her (politically).

The only power the VP has is breaking a tie in the Senate. That's it.