The premise that Hillary Clinton should pick Elizabeth Warren as her Vice President strikes me as too convenient for Wall Street to be accepted at face value, especially by Bernie Sanders supporters. It’s currently fashionable among some Bernie Sanders supporters, and among LOTS of media outlets, to propose that Ms. Clinton draft Elizabeth Warren as the Democratic nominee for Vice President.
In my view, the much-reviled Wall Street power players are the primary beneficiaries of this terrible idea. Wall Street knows that Ms. Clinton is likely to be elected (even if the media breathlessly suggest something different). As Vice President, Elizabeth Warren will have virtually NO role in taking apart the too-big-to-fail banks, shadow-banks, and similar institutions. As Vice President, Elizabeth Warren will be similarly impotent in and irrelevant to federal regulation, investigation, and prosecution of these players.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is a powerhouse who is increasingly reviled and feared by Wall Street and their puppets in government. I think progressives who are committed to the progressive agenda articulated by Ms. Warren and by Bernie Sanders (not to mention Ms. Warren herself) ought to be horrified at the suggestion of cutting her legs out from under her. Those who argue (incorrectly) that Ms. Clinton is already too influenced by Wall Street are foolish to allow themselves to be seduced by this terrible idea.
We progressives should NOT allow ourselves to be made a tool of Wall Street. Senator Elizabeth Warren should stay right where she is, so that she can continue doing just what she has been doing since taking office.
If what you are saying is true, it brings to mind the efforts of some on Wall Street to put the “madman” Teddy Roosevelt on McKinley’s ticket in 1900 in order to get him out of New York, give him a powerless position, and prevent him from launching a presidential campaign in 1904. Of course, that plan didn’t work out as expected.
However, I don’t get any sense that Wall Street power players are in any way behind this, nor does it make sense for them to be. The VP is far more important than in the past, and Clinton would not pick her if she didn’t plan for Warren to have a key role in governance (nor would Warren accept). Warren will be a thorn in Wall Street’s side whether she’s a Senator, has an administrative post, or ends up being the VP.
…that she would have no influence. She would be a powerful voice for her issues both internally and externally and signal that the administration is serious about this.
It seems to me that she has actual and measurable power as a sitting Senator. She can compel witnesses to answer her questions under oath. I don’t believe the Vice President can do anything of the sort.
She is demonstrating that she is able to speak loudly enough as Senator for all of Wall Street, and America, to hear. I think being elected as Vice President would actually muffle, rather than amplify, her vital voice.
…but how much more significant it would be if her voice came backed with the full power and authority of a presidential administration behind it! Constitutional handwringing aside, the truth is the presidency is the dominant branch of our government in both the popular imagination and often in reality. She can also be in the room in a way a Senator isn’t always.
Their role is to support the president. Yeah, well there was that one exception where the VP was a decent ventriloquist and his voice was carried by the lips of GWB, but that’s an exception. If she was the VP, Warren would be obligated to adopt the same pro Wall Street stance of the president and the room filled with former Goldman Sachs now cabinet members and so on.
Warren could influence the administration to be less pro-Wall Street, and then powerfully represent the administration on those grounds in public. HRC tapping her would send a powerful message that she is willing to listen to that wing of the party. I reject your cynical prediction about how else the administration will be constituted.
I understand that this is your scenario. I see no historical or constitutional support for it, though. The VP does not participate in Senate hearing, and at best has a bully-pulpit — even there, only as an underling of the President.
This discussion misses the point I’m making about how Wall Street views all this — I still argue that Wall Street will be much happier if Ms. Warren is VP rather than continuing in the Senate.
The most powerful message that President Hillary Clinton can send about listening to the progressive wing of the Democratic party is to visibly and explicitly work hand-in-hand with Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders to advance legislation and policy that supports the progressive populist agenda.
Trickle up says
I think she’d have more influence in the Senate. Not cut off from her power base.
Please, we’re all adults here. Most of the people in Washington D.C. are greatly influenced by Wall Street. Rare exceptions like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders aside, it’s clear that Wall Street is running things, including any past of future president with “Clinton” as their last name. Where did the “recovery” from the great recession go Mr. Obama? Ooops….it all went to Wall Street. Who went to jail? Just about no one. Who was put in place to fix the mess? Guys & gals from Wall Street. On Wall Street: Robert Rubin? Chairman and COO of Goldman Sachs and Secretary of Treasury under Bill Clinton. Laura Tyson Board director of Stanley Morgan and Chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration. Hank Paulson
Hank Paulson: Goldman Sachs CEO Secretary of Treasury under George W. Bush and President Obama.
Must I continue?
began with a serious of bank runs and bank failures. Having the banking system collapse in this country in 2009 would have been quite disastrous for everyone — rich and poor. Without sources of credit, economic activity grinds to a halt. (Telling example: this is why African Americans have so little wealth. From the time slavery was ended until pretty much the present day, they’ve been denied credit. Explicitly so in the South, and then de facto after the Great Migration.)
While I’m still quite annoyed that there have been precious few prosecutions about mortgage-backed securities and banker-induced foreclosure scams, the government intervention in the banking system saved us from catastrophe. This was not a matter of “rewarding Wall Street”. It was a matter of keeping the economy from cratering, and you and me with it.
And the lack or a return to Glass Stegall? Yeah, total bank failure would have been awful, so Obama puts Wall Street insiders to work, fixing Wall Street. End of discussion. What about the rest of us? If you were at the last Mass Dems Convention and listened to Senator Warren, she pointed out that none if US got any good news from this “recovery”. In fact most us US are now worse off.
Your acceptance of this is a large part of how and why the Democrats in power are able to keep their “donations” flowing in from Wall Street and still count on your votes flowing in at the ballot box.
I’d prefer to debate someone more intellectually honest.
Your refusal to admit that Democrats have stronger ties to Wall Street than us is dishonest. Your faith that saving Wall Street worked out for the best and was all our Democratic president could do is, once again, denial.
Who is “us”?
You again distort and mis-state the comment from kbusch. She didn’t say that she has “faith” that “saving Wall Street worked out for the best”.
She said, instead, that total collapse of the western economic system would have been FAR FAR worse for each and every one of us than what Barack Obama did. Have you actually THOUGHT about what such a collapse would have meant for the entire world? It doesn’t sound like it.
The comment you are objecting to says that what happened in 2008 and 2009 is better than what happened in 1929. If you disagree with that, then you need to learn more history and economics.
This comment just doesn’t make any sense. I have no clue of what tribe you claim membership in, but you’re just not making sense AT ALL.
Bernie shows you don’t need Wall Street money to be competitive. The best thing Hillary can do is refuse to accept anymore contributions and embrace the Bernie model of campaign finance. He should also export that model to downballot candidates if he wants his movement to continue past one campaign cycle.
I’m not sure I accept the implied premise that if Bernie could raise money that way, Hillary should have been just as easily able to as well.
Hillary Clinton needs win. Bernie Sanders lost. Close counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. It doesn’t work in elections.
Bernie Sanders shows that without deep pockets and YEARS of organization, you lose. I don’t know whether or that means Wall Street money, but the money MUST come from somewhere.
The fact remains that a 1929-style collapse of the US and world economy would have been an absolutely catastrophe, FAR WORSE than what happened after the crash of 2008.
That fundamental truth MUST be recognized if we are to have a coherent economic policy in our government.
Your words; “without deep pockets and YEARS of organization, you lose. I don’t know whether or that means Wall Street money, but the money MUST come from somewhere.”….
Jeb had all of that and more. He lost. He did not even make it as far as Sanders did.
“The fact remains that a 1929-style collapse of the US and world economy would have been an absolutely catastrophe”
Sure, but your “fundamental truth” assumes a false dichotomy that we had two and only two choices. One was the choice we made to bail out the .1% and give lip service to labor and the other was a 1929 style collapse. That, like your earlier statement, it not supported by the evidence or history.
Can we try some basic logic here? Please?
Saying that something is necessary is different from saying it is sufficient. It is necessary to pass the bar to be a good lawyer. Many lawyers who pass the bar are not good.
Bernie Sanders was so busy rejecting Wall Street for the last few decades that he had no deep pockets and no organization. He ran a fine quixotic campaign. All of us, including Mr. Sanders, knew that he had no chance of winning. He lost. The premise that Hillary Clinton should emulate his losing strategy is, in my view, fundamentally flawed.
Jeb Bush had deep pockets and years of organization. Like a not-so-good lawyer who passed the bar, he learned that the deep pockets and years of organization are necessary and NOT SUFFICIENT.
The choices made in in 2008 and 2009 avoided catastrophic collapse. Many of us wish that the Obama administration had drawn a harder line with the financial community in the aftermath of the collapse. Hillary Clinton has said, repeatedly, that she proposes tougher regulation on the financial community.
Sanders came out of nowhere and was a serious threat to the Clinton Political Machine. Yes, he came out short, but dismiss him and his message and his followers at your peril. If he had no chance of winning, the Clinton Machine would have not attacked him.
You move the goal posts when you now say ” he learned that the deep pockets and years of organization are necessary and NOT SUFFICIENT.”
Correct. You need a message that resonates with a populist electorate. Hillary did not have that. Yes, she had millions of faithful (some would say fearful) party insiders. She’ll need more than that to win in November.
Again, you wrote “The choices made in in 2008 and 2009 avoided catastrophic collapse.”….for the banks, yeah. But again, if you attended the breakout session by Warren, you’d know that that collapse is still very real for labor and the middle class.
You wrote “Hillary Clinton has said, repeatedly, that she proposes tougher regulation on the financial community.”
Her voting record in the senate and her husband’s record as president run counter to that pledge.
Mrs. Clinton won more freaking votes than Senator Sanders. That’s a lot of resonating.
Possibly you were still a conservative back in 2009, but I invite you to review somervilletom’s and my comments then about what we did and did not support. Until you do that, could I suggest that you not continue to attribute positions to either of us.
After all, a decision to support Sec. Clinton is not identical with a full-throated endorsement of Sec. Geithner. You seem to think that it is.
Just as with your Berwick predictions, you’re mistaken.
So your point is that if a Democratic candidate does not have a message that resonates with working people and does not lead to “deep pocket” money from that demographic, you’re okay with that candidate selling out to Wall Street in order to win an election.
That’s a very sad statement and in my mind, part of the reason the Democratic Party is in such bad shape.
You don’t need Wall Street money to make a good showing but still lose a primary contest.
General elections are different. One has to appeal to low information voters who have no clue where ISIS is located, what a fiscal stimulus is, or low-information voters such as johntmay who don’t know the difference between legislation pushed by Democrats versus Republicans. Getting such people’s votes takes a lot of cash.
I think you must live on another planet. Possibly better radio reception would help. Again you were a conservative in 2009 and have NO IDEA WHATEVER what liberals like me were saying.
I think that this is an issue of speaking with someone from Planet Manichean where everything is black and white, good and evil, hero and scoundrel. My 2008 comments around the newly elected Obama on this site were to prepare for disappointment. I expect every Democratic President to disappoint.
The person with whom we’re having this exchange, on the other hand, has tended to get completely wrapped up in candidates: Coakley was all bad; Berwick all good.
So I think what’s happening is that I’m being read as if I were a fellow Manichean: defending any action of the Obama Administration is symptomatic of thinking that the Obama Administration is just as dreamy and perfect as Berwick or Sanders. The idea that one might vote for Mrs. Clinton without being a member of the Cult of Hillary is simply inconceivable to visitors from Planet Manichean. And of course anyone not from the Side of Goodness and Light must be from its opposite, thus there can be little difference between lesser Democrats and the GOP. After all they’re all not-good, hence evil. No distinctions necessary.
This Manicheanism accounts for the misattributions of beliefs and the slipperiness of the responses. Somervilletom and others are being seen as members of some kind of opposing cult. If one views it that way, the responses become relevant and coherent.
It also explains a certain amount of talking past one another.
Even mentioning the primary created a litany of back and forth comments about it. Goodness. All I meant to say is that if everyone who gave $27 to Sanders donates to Clinton she won’t need Wall Streer. Maybe that’s a better way to phrase is so that we can finally come together.
I’m genuinely impressed that he matched her dollar for dollar despite a career outside the party and without a wealthy Rolodex. I think there is much to be gained by the Clinton camp learning from that campaign and adapting it, and it ought not to be dismissed. They are already hiring Sanders staffers so they seem to recognize the value. It’s a strategic question and not a question of purity or who was better in the primary, I’m really uninterested in rehashing any of those debates.
I think you are responding to something I wrote elsewhere.
Good point, by the way.
Trickle up says
Maybe I’m missing the point, but this is just saying again what a shame it would be if we traded our Sr. Senator for a warm bucket of spit.
I agree, but would put it differently.
The apparent enthusiasm of some supporters of Bernie Sanders (who are also critics of Hillary Clinton) for this awful idea is contributing to the hoopla the media are attempting raise about it.
I hear you about the warm bucket of “spit” (I understand the original quote was somewhat pithier). While perhaps unnecessary, I sought a colorful way to get the attention of those who argue (incoherently) that nominating Ms. Warren will somehow strengthen our hand against Wall Street.
Trickle up says
Same number of letters. Just as much pith in that bucket either way.
…but Clinton supporters who want to rally Sanders supporters.
Neither has taken a 3am phone call or been in the situation room. It’ll be someone with direct experience in the national security apparatus to double down on fitness to command. This entire campaign will be the Daisy Ad, since that’s what resonates most with swing voters, independents, and is the key reason behind Republican uneasiness with Trump. Now that Sanders has been dispatched, the focus of this race will shift from the economy to national security with Clinton as the only president on the stage.
She will select either my dark horse Bob Gates, or someone with defense experience and experience in Congress. Leon Panetta, Jack Reed, Bill Nelson, Chris Murphy, Chris Coons, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall or Adam Smith.
Panetta was one of the first Democrats back in 1998 to publicly speculate that President Clinton should resign. He’s not someone I think Hillary would trust as a VP. He’s not that loyal.
I don’t think Castro’s ready for a national campaign, and Warren won’t give up her power to police Wall Street with Senate hearings.
Mark L. Bail says
…and if you are making the prepared to take over on a moment’s notice argument, I understand that, but from an election standpoint I think she has national security covered.
Patriot fans have come to trusting Bill on all matters New England Patriots. Don’t you think Elizabeth Warren has earned our trust, too.
If Warren thinks being VP is better than being US Senator, that’s good enough for me.
…had also earned enough trust to have her most ardent supporters respect her endorsement decision too, but no, on FB several are claiming she is a sell out and no longer want anything to do with her:(
Most of Warren’s critics are not from MA. Fuck them. Once-every-four-year participants in elections from other states get no credit in the real world of politics. Warren is smart enough and tough enough not to heed them. She did not sweat the criticism of Wall Street, is the toughest national critic of Trump and so most certainly does not give a shit about the Bernistas.
I am glad Sanders waged his fight. I am glad (this opinion is subject to immediate change) he is still pushing to move the Dems leftward. Let’s not mistake Sen Sanders for the lunatics who join on the edges of American politics every few years.