"Weiss supporters in the White House and on Wall Street were stunned."

[MannyGoldstein]

Interesting article in Politico today on how Elizabeth Warren ended Obama’s nomination of rich Wall Street banker Antonio Weiss to be Under Secretary for Domestic Finance. Warren led the effort to totally shut the deal down – she wouldn’t even meet with Weiss. Some choice bits:

The game in Washington had changed.

Elizabeth Warren, sometimes disregarded by the White House as a largely irrelevant nuisance, could no longer be ignored. Bolstered by grass roots groups eager for any anti-Wall Street crusade and a vibrant progressive media that hung on her every word, Warren succeeded in knocking out Weiss’ nomination

…

It was not a total victory. Weiss will still join Treasury as an unconfirmed counselor to Secretary Jack Lew. But in terms of symbolism, the Washington power game and the ideological direction of the Democratic Party, Warren won big. And the moderate, Wall Street- and business-friendly wing of the party — in past years happily occupied by Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting Hillary Clinton — got punched in the mouth.

…

On the other side, the despair among Wall Street’s Democratic elite is growing acute. As is the belief that Weiss himself never mattered in this fight.

If it wasn’t obvious before, Warren’s speeches in Congress on December 10th and December 12th (required watching if you haven’t seen them!) made it clear that Warren’s at war with Wall Street Predators and their paid help in government. Her speeches were in response to the White House and Jamie Dimon whipping votes from Democratic senators to enable the big banks to use FDIC funds (which guarantee savings bank deposits) as collateral for huge and risky Wall Street derivative bets.

Thanks Sen. Warren!!!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. More than ever I would like to see her run, and win...and then we could find out once and

for all what the deal is, the real deal.

Before I die I would like to see someone who we ASSUME is on our side 100%, who we are CERTAIN would do the right thing in every case, and see what actually happens.

[robbob]

52. I would guess assassination.

There is simply too much money and power involved. I don't think TBTB are ever going to let anyone upset their gilded apple cart.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

53. That is the point, though, isnt it. Surely if Liz knew she HAD to not cross certain lines

to either save her physical life OR political life, she would probably do it.

I think Obama made a deal WAY back when about trade, that he would get support from certain people as long as he agreed that if a trade deal like TPP came along he would be on board.

I even think I know the individual person he promised this to, but for the life of me I cant remember her name.

She was a supporter early on in Chicago, rich woman, backed him.

Liberal on social issues but moderate to right on economics, as I recall.

[lark]

54. The Koch brothers would hire the hitter.

No way would they easily tolerate a Warren presidency, all their graft for nothing and their greed would also take a big hit when Warren ended fracking, Keystone, and government handouts to oil companies. Ah sweet dreams of the Kochs being indicted for the actual crime they've been committing for some time - treason!

[Jackpine Radical]

2. SHE'S NOT RUNNING, GODDAMIT!

So quit posting stuff like this. You're making us Look Bad. You're making us look like we aren't all lined up by rank & file, goose-stepping marching behind Hillary.

[Hari Seldon]

8. Perhaps Hillary should announce that she's not running

Maybe its that whole forbidden fruit type of thing...

[Scuba]

28. Snort!

[Enthusiast]

38. Pffft!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Plucketeer]

56. Yeah Dammit!

I wanna be known for my OBEDIENCE!!! I wanna be regarded as a pillar of CONFORMITY!!! I wanna bask in an unmistakable glow of COMMUNITY!!! None of that THROW THE BUMS OUT heresy for me! - I'm a Democrat!

[Jackpine Radical]

57. What you lookin at? Eyes back on the ground!

[truedelphi]

58. Thanks for mentioning this book. n/t

[djean111]

3. Jamie Dimon whipping votes for Obama. Not ever going to get over that one.

NO, he was NOT worried about people suffering because of a government shut down. And how very illuminating that Obama felt Dimon would be so influential. Bought and paid for. I am not going to vote for another one from that group.

[truedelphi]

6. Dimon has been wearing those fancy pants WH engraved pendants and things for quite a while.

Forget if it was cuff links or whatever, but that is when it became clear to me that we were totally played for fools in 2008.

The biggest goddamn transfer of wealth from the Middle Class to the wealthiest one half of one percent since the days preceeding the French Revolution. And due almost entirely to Obama's appointments.

[Enthusiast]

39. +1

[JDPriestly]

17. I'm with you. I'm not voting for any of them.

[libdem4life]

4. Personally, I want her laser-focused on the very rot of the entire political system...what she is

doing now. She could not do this if she were having to finance, run, grovel before the very people she is now taking to the woodshed. And her family has said No, as has she.

She is pulling HRC to the left, hopefully anyway, she is firing up the left, and she will continue to as she gets headlines pairing the likes of Jamie Dimon and Obama and their shenanigans. She's deeply inside the money world...and that's a very good thing.

This should get her Secretary of Treasury.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Pulling Hillary to the left will do nothing, I fear

If elected she'd sprint hard right like Obama, and like her husband did before him.

In any case, I don't think Hillary's running. I think Warren ultimately will.

[truedelphi]

7. Now if only Hillary Clinton hears the idea of not running.

I don't think she can let it go.

[libdem4life]

9. I agree it's no panacea, but part of the hard right spring you mention I believe is due to the

realities of The Beltway and the best kept secret that The Federal Bureaucracy pretty much runs things.

If you aren't "on the inside", which politicians love to tout and taxpayers go gaga over, newly elected officials get it quick that once in office that's a serious negative and the President is hamstrung by lack of important relationships, thus getting his way, therein. He or she is only there for 4-8 years yet the Bureaucracy lives on forever, death or retirement is a long attrition rate.

I think it's actually a shadow Fourth Branch of the Government, not as a conspiracy theory, but as a necessary evil in order to service/govern so many millions of people. Nor am I a State's Righter, either...as that surely has its downside.

I believe in 20 or so years, the President will be merely a figurehead and elections the opportunity for money to change hands. TPM used the term Oligarchy in a recent article and a Princeton paper ... think it was TPM as well, said we're no longer a Democracy. Then I read about the Koch's Billion Dollar Purchase (or attempt thereof) of the election.

JMO.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. I agree with you, but...

it will change, if we make it change.

If we put people in charge who want change, and who'll fight for change, and they have the backing of the American People, it will change. It happened in 1932, it can happen again.

[billhicks76]

29. Hillary Is A Liar And A Fake

We would have to be the biggest fools on earth to nominate her. Now she's trying to "buy" votes by suggesting she will nominate Obama to The Supreme Court. She serves the Bush Family and the crime syndicates they represent.

[rhett o rick]

34. She is the favorite of the Oligarch Rulers. Well, they'd prefer Jeb, but will settle for H. Clinton-

Sachs.

[billhicks76]

61. She Like Her "Husband" Are The Bushes Personal Back Up Choices

Its nauseating watching her push for Jeb and against Christie...I can't stand them both but Bush can NEVER be trusted. I bet they combed through Christies NSA recorded life and got the Dallas Cowboys owner to go along with their media spectacle.

[Enthusiast]

40. I see this the same way.

[Nay]

46. I agree completely, Manny. It doesn't matter to me one whit if Clinton starts

talking 'lefty' because Warren pushes her. As soon as she wins the nomination, Hillary will sprint hard right, just as you say. I'm amazed at the number of people who think that leopards will change their spots like that. It's juvenile, like thinking that this time Lucy will let me kick the football.

It's interesting that you think Hillary won't run. May I ask why you think that?

[billhicks76]

62. Liars Say Whatever And Then Go Back To Evil Ways

Oh she is running...decided a long time ago just like Jeb...Bush Sr planned both their roles out Im sure.

[zeemike]

10. It will only pull Hillary's words to the left.

And as we have already seen with Obama, words mean nothing.
They say anything to get elected, but what they do does not match the words.
I don't know why we still fall for this Trojan horse thing but we do.

[Autumn]

12. Hillary may "talk" and campaign to the left. Hillary's not really gonna go there.

[marmar]

51. exactly. she'll sound populist....

..... as her pockets are being stuffed with campaign cash from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup

[billhicks76]

31. Hillary Rotten

I just listened to her trying to marginalize Christie while saying Bush is the most formidable opponent. I heard the Bushes marginalize Warren and Biden while extolling Hillary. It's obvious neither is doing this out of fear of the stronger opponent. This is about two allies wanting to exclude everyone else from the contests of power so they can solely share in the spoils themselves. Bush and Clinton should be banned from politics.

[Enthusiast]

41. +1

[rhett o rick]

32. I have a couple of problems with what you post. No one is "pulling H. Clinton-Sachs to the left".

Think about it. Do you really think she will change her ideology? She may pretend to "change" but it will be a lie. She can't be trusted. She has zero integrity. And if H. Clinton-Sachs is elected, do you really think she will give Sen Warren an appointment? She will bring back those bastards that brought the banks down. Rubin, Geitner, etc.

It's time for real change, not Obama change. It's time to dump H. Clinton and the corporatist Democrats.

[BeanMusical]

36. +1

[libdem4life]

59. I was married to a politician and know pretty first hand that they can and do change their stripes

at any given time...so if the pressure is to the left, that's where they will go. Or, to the right...that is where they go.

Just one question...dumping as you say, who then can get the billion dollars needed to win? That's a fact...not wishing and hoping. The Right ... and the world ... knows where they are getting their billion dollars...article in TPM...the Koch Brothers. Just not known is who is getting it. No one gets elected without the "corporatists" Why? They have the money. We little folk don't. Fact.

So, seriously, what's the plan to dump the only money maker in the party? It's Pie in the Sky, as I see it. Somebody put together a plan to harness all of this anti-Hillary emotion into something concrete...something...anything. But until I see it, it's wasted negative energy.

[rhett o rick]

60. Thank you for your post. I think it reveals one of the problems we Democrats face.

You are concerned that we might be dumping "the only money maker in the party". As I see it, we are sinking into the mire of tyranny. We need change. How much should we risk to get our liberties and freedoms back? I say it's time to go for it. Stop the cycle of voting for the best "money maker" and vote for people with integrity and stand up for Democratic values. H. Clinton is a tool of the system, a system run by the Oligarch Rulers (incl Goldman-Sachs). It's time to stand up for what we believe. The movement has started, please join and don't fight against it. Just how deep in the mire are you willing for the country to sink before you decide to fight for our democracy?

[libdem4life]

64. I couldn't agree with you more...note my tagline...I'm a way Left Leftie...and outrage

is indeed appropriate. Nor am I fighting anything. I clearly see reality at this point and One Billion Dollars is required to get the prize...EOS. I hate that, but it's like a snowball that's only 3/4 of the way down, IMO. That realization doesn't require fighting anything. Oligarchy...yes, I believe we are already there, as does a writer on TPM.

How does one enter this movement now...at this point in time...in a productive way...again, One Billion Dollars is not going to change in the next few months.

I'm going to sign off on it, however, until someone comes up with something concrete. Maybe it's an "Obama-type" Dark Horse. If they are Left of HRC, I'm in. Family matters have moved me from the decades of political comfort of a Blue West Coast State to a Red Mid West state. Talk about dissonance.

I respectfully thank you for your reply. I enjoy your posts.

[rhett o rick]

65. I apparently misunderstood your post for capitulation. We can't fight them with money.

We have to figure out ways to bring the corporatists around to thinking they should share the wealth. This won't be easy because some are totally corrupted by unbridled capitalism, but some should recognize they shouldn't leave the peasants with nothing to live for.

Accepting the status-quo, like voting for H. Clinton, is capitulation. If we don't fight, our children will be enslaved.

[Autumn]

11. SHE"S NOT RUNNING Manny!

To the detriment of the American people.

Automatic Manny rec and thanks for the OP.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. I agree, she's not running.

She's strolling into the Oval Office, flattening anything in her way.

[Autumn]

47. From your keyboard to Gods and Elizabeth's ears Manny.

I wrote her the other day, so no way I am giving up. We need her.

[AgingAmerican]

13. The Third Way won't be happy...

stay away from small aircraft Liz...please!!

[Duval]

14. Thanks, Sen. Warren! nt

[Demeter]

15. But, alas, they were only stunned. Not annihilated and dispossessed.

Thanks for the post, Manny, whichever one you are today.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Yet.

One step at a time.

[AgingAmerican]

23. They were, however, somewhat discombobulated..

...and very much flummoxed!

[JDPriestly]

16. Wall Street needs to take notice of what has happened on Main Streets around the world thanks

to their policies. A lot of good, honest people have suffered.

I hope the Greek election will wake up some of these sleepy automatons who think that their balance sheets actually mean something in the real world.

[AgingAmerican]

24. To Wall Street, Main Street are nothing more than "Takers"

...and as such should be treated derisively.

[Enthusiast]

42. +1

[rhett o rick]

33. In capitalism a lot of people have to suffer. Wealth is essentially a zero sum game.

For some to gain wealth, many, many have to suffer. It's not personal, it's just business.

I call it "class sociopathy". They don't wish us to die, they just don't care if we do.

[Enthusiast]

43. +1

[WillyT]

18. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Utopian Leftist]

20. Hillary should be encouraged to run.

IF she will agree to forgo the evil hijinks that she cast on poor Obama in 2008. Otherwise, just retire in dignity and quiet.

Regardless, it will be such showstopping entertainment to witness Elizabeth Warren clean the debate stage with Hillary's Third Way ass, in 2016. We need someone like Hillary to run, to represent the conservative wing of the Party. So that people will know that Democrats no longer stand for crony capitalism, oligarchy or plutocracy.

Any way you look at it, Warren wins that battle.

Think about it....Why would any true liberal vote in the primaries for a BLUE DOG like Hillary? When we could have the first truly progressive President since FDR in Warren or Sanders? The vote won't even be close once people learn what the candidates stand for.

[billhicks76]

30. Clintons Fault Repubs Are Whackos

Because they ran to the center and then moved the center to the right. This forced those on the right to run to the far right to differentiate themselves. It's that simple.

[RiverLover]

45. OMG I never thought of it like that.

That is so true.

Lovely.

[billhicks76]

63. I Have For A Long Time

It was planned...thank their close family friend Bush Sr.

[Faryn Balyncd]

25. Thank you, Senator!

[tclambert]

26. But, Manny, who would pay for Warren's campaign?

It may cost a billion dollars to buy win the White House in 2016.

[Demeter]

27. Truth is the skunk at the party

Hi there!

[Fearless]

35. How far democracy has fallen

[BeanMusical]

37. Kick and R.

Great post.

[Enthusiast]

44. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Thanks, Manny.

[Paka]

48. Bravo!!

I would love to have an opportunity to vote for her for President, but right now we need her just where she is and doing what she does so well. Love that lady!

[ieoeja]

49. Translation

“In this case, the thing Warren was against — adding another Wall Street anti-regulatory guy — wasn’t even remotely true,” said one senior Wall Street Democrat who has worked in government but, like many interviewed for this article, declined to be identified by name to avoid Warren’s wrath. “There is no one in government right now who has any market or finance experience. It’s not like there are ‘too many.’”

...snip...

The White House nominated Weiss, a highly respected Wall Street banker at boutique firm Lazard, on Nov. 12. Treasury wanted him because no one in its top leadership tier — including Lew and deputy secretary Sarah Bloom Raskin — had any real financial markets experience.

Lew worked briefly at Citigroup, as did under secretary for international affairs Nathan Sheets. Raskin worked for a time at Promontory Financial Group. But none had the kind of deep relationships or international financial experience that Weiss did. And Weiss, in addition to his work on Wall Street, was a big financial supporter and bundler for President Barack Obama.

In that first paragraph, one senior Wall Street Democrat apparently meant to say, "there are lots of people in government right now who have plenty of market or financial exerience, but they don't have close enough ties to the decision makers in the industry".

[RiverLover]

50. Or...

-----
“In this case, the thing Warren was against -- adding another Wall Street anti-regulatory guy -- wasn’t even remotely true,” said one senior Wall Street Democrat who has worked in government but, like many interviewed for this article, declined to be identified by name to avoid Warren’s wrath. “There is no one in government right now who has any market or finance experience. It’s not like there are ‘too many.’"
-----
Sweet Yeezus. More like "declined to be identified to avoid having their name associated with a statement that's howlingly ludicrous."

Look, I can understand if someone has passed through the revolving door a bunch of times and now holds the view that there is insufficient market or finance experience within the federal government's financial bureaucracy. But to say "there is no one in government right now who has any market or finance experience" is, to use the academic term, bonkers sauce. You don't need to look further than the guy who runs the Treasury, Jack Lew, who was formerly the chief operating officer of CitiGroup's Alternative Investment prop-trading unit, where he had something of a storied history.

Let's do look further, though! Your Federal Reserve governing board has several members who, I'm guessing, would love to throttle Mr. or Ms. Anonymous Source for the above quote -- most notably Federal Reserve Governors Jerome Powell (Carlyle Group), Stanley Fischer (CitiGroup) and Lael Brainard (McKinsey).

Throughout the regulatory landscape you'll find a slew of top officials who very well might take umbrage at Anonymous McSourcy's version of events. Many of these people are former law partners whose clients were definitely under the impression that they knew their way around markets and investments. Like, say, SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar (partner at McKenna Long & Aldridge), CFTC Chairman Timothy Massad (partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore) and CFTC Commissioner Sharon Y. Bowen (partner at Latham & Watkins). The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has its own murderers' row of leaders who can make the same boast.

Heck, in CFTC Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo, we find a guy who successfully managed to get the private sector windfall for which Weiss was angling. As Bloomberg News' Robert Schmidt reported last week:...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/anonymous-source-elizabeth-warren_n_6548696.html

These guys are hilarious, trying to justify foxes guarding hen houses. They make a mockery of our "regulatory" agencies.