​Hillary Clinton Meets Privately With Elizabeth Warren; Politico "Speculates" Why

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Elizabeth Warren
in 2013.  Credit Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

by Gaius Publius

The Hillary Clinton–Elizabeth Warren story has always been complicated. Clinton has stood for Wall Street, for example, and Warren against. The Clintons as a group and a Foundation have stood for income redistribution to the rich (via NAFTA, "free trade" and deregulation) while salving the rest of us with promises of education that will, as some say it, "prepare 21st century workers for 21st century jobs" (in Asia?). Warren, on the other hand, has consistently stood against wealth redistribution away from the middle class, and for debt relief for the middle class. A tale, as they say, of opposites.

Yet in 2013 Warren signed a group letter supporting Hillary Clinton:

All the female Democrats in the Senate [including Sen. Warren] have jumped on the "Hillary for President" bandwagon — even though some of the liberal lady lawmakers on Team Hill are thought to have presidential ambitions of their own come 2016.

The group of 16, reportedly led by veteran Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) lended their signatures to the note, encouraging their former colleague to try again for the White House.

And Warren repeatedly refuses to fuel speculation that she's considering giving thought to a possible White House run. According to her pronouncements, she's not even thinking about giving consideration to this thought.

Yet Warren has taken an activist role in the Senate — an anti-Obama role at times, and clearly an anti-Clintonian one — by her failed attempt to sabotage the weakening of Dodd-Frank derivatives regulation, and her successful attempt to derail the appointment of Wall Street heavyweight Antonio Weiss to Undersecretary of the Treasury. This puts her, as some say, in the Populist wing of the Democratic party, with Clinton aligned with the Wall Street wing, both by word and deed.

Clinton seems determined to run, if not eager to announce early. There certainly are a number of "friendly" PACs doing fund-raising on her behalf. Yet the Wall Street wing has never been more unpopular with voters, both Democratic and Republican, and Elizabeth Warren has a great deal of support.

As to their candidacies, it's presumed by most that Clinton will run for the White House, and it's hard to think, at this point, of Warren taking that step — certainly while Clinton is not out of the race, if even then.

As I said, complicated. In sum:

▪ Clinton is likely running, Warren is likely not.
▪ Clinton is less popular with Democratic voters, Warren considerably more.
▪ Clinton is thought to want the White House badly, Warren to prefer the Senate.

But, because they would both potentially be the "first woman president":

▪ Warren can win a larger share of Democratic voters than Clinton can ever hope to.

This is a tough problem for Clinton. If she's truly running, she needs to figure out how to paint herself with "Warren cred" while not abandoning her moneyed supporters. She could give "Populist wing" speeches, as Obama has recently done, but would she be believed? What would you do in her position?

Clinton Asked For a Private Meeting With Warren

In this context, we find this news via Politico. First, just the headline:

Hillary Clinton, Privately, Seeks the Favor of Elizabeth Warren 

Compare Politico's headline with my heading for this section. See the difference? This is Politico putting intention to the action. Clinton is not just seeking a meeting, she's seeking some of that "Warren cred" I just mentioned. Now from the piece (my emphasis):

Hillary Rodham Clinton held a private meeting with Senator Elizabeth Warren in December, seeking to cultivate the increasingly influential senator and to grapple with issues raised by a restive Democratic left, such as income inequality.

The two met at the Northwest Washington home of the Clintons, without aides and at Mrs. Clinton’s invitation.

Mrs. Clinton solicited policy ideas and suggestions from Ms. Warren, according to a Democrat briefed on the meeting, who called it “cordial and productive.” Mrs. Clinton, who has been seeking advice from a range of scholars, advocates and officials, did not ask Ms. Warren to consider endorsing her likely presidential candidacy.

Is Clintons seeking ideas, or innocence by association? Feel free to make up your own mind, as I have done mine. And while you're asking yourself questions like these, ask yourself this — what's the source of the three bolded phrases in the final paragraph quoted above?

There's much in the piece that you already know, including:

Ms. Warren has repeatedly said she is not running for president, and she has taken no steps that would indicate otherwise. Still, she is intent on pushing a robust populist agenda, and her confidants have suggested that she would use her Senate perch during the 2016 campaign to nudge Mrs. Clinton to embrace causes like curtailing the power of large financial institutions.

The get-together highlighted an early challenge for Mrs. Clinton, who as the Democrats’ leading contender for 2016 has all but cleared the field for her party’s primary. She is intent on developing an economic platform that can speak to her party’s populist wing and excite working class voters without alienating allies in the business community.

That Mrs. Clinton reached out to Ms. Warren suggested that she was aware of how much the debate over economic issues had shifted even during the relatively short time she was away from domestic politics while serving as secretary of state.

That's Politico doing its contextual due diligence. But again, you knew all that. The piece I bolded above is a giveaway, though, just as Politico's headline was, and the word "cultivate" from its very first sentence. What does Clinton want? Policy ideas, an endorsement, or some second-hand credibility? Policy ideas are free and obvious — rein in Big Money, take away some of their plunder (yes, that's the right word for it), and give that recovered loot back to the people they took it from.

Since Clinton's not stupid, one has to presume she wants the other two. Would she welcome an endorsement? I think she'd kill, in the virtual sense, for it. Would she settle for some of the cred to rub from Warren's shoulders to hers, as they stood side by side smiling at the cameras? Of course.

But she wants something else as well. The Politico article suggest that Clinton wants more than just "cred" from Warren — she wants a bit more silence:

The one-on-one meeting also represented a step toward relationship building for two women who do not know each other well. And for Mrs. Clinton, it was a signal that she would prefer Ms. Warren’s counsel delivered in person, as a friendly insider, rather than on national television or in opinion articles.

About Warren and "insiders," consider what she told Bill Moyers. And again, where did the writers get such an idea?

What's the Source of Politico's Many "Speculations"?

Now let's look at the layer below the Clinton-Warren layer. This article came from somewhere. Does it contain a large amount of speculation on the writers' part, or is there an "unacknowledged source" from the Clinton team whispering into the writers' combined shell-like, helping to feed the article that helps to feed Clinton's cred?

Again, feel free to make up your own mind, but know that pieces like these don't come out of the wild blue, and the writers, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin, are connected to people who know the people who know how to get things in the press. With that question about "unacknowledged sources" in mind, note the writers' ending:

Both Mrs. Clinton and her husband appeared eager to keep a close eye on Ms. Warren; Bill Clinton has appeared sensitive to her oblique criticism of his deregulation of financial institutions.

The word "appeared" appears twice in this sentence. Under what hedge do you have to be looking for these appearances to be seen? Or is it a matter of to whose mouth your ear is tuned? I'd be shocked if this piece — with all its insider-y motive-guessing — came from any source but the Clinton camp. If so, with Ms. Clinton's knowledge? On that, your speculation is as good as anyone's — and as obvious.

If you do think Clinton is ultimately the source of so much in this article, I strongly suggest you reread it carefully with that in mind and find, phrase by phrase, Clinton's likely contributions to it. What information can only come from Team Clinton? You too can hear like an insider.

GP

Election Weekend In Thailand

I'm in Bangkok, right now, theoretically recuperating from a grueling month in Nepal. But it's so hot and humid here-- normally I visit Thailand in December, when it rarely gets to 90 degrees-- that it's utterly demotivating... demotivating to do anything. And for me, an air-conditioning-phobe, the bone-chilling full-blast dry freezing air indoors (including in the SkyTrain) makes it even worse. If you dress for the hot humid air you freeze when you enter any building. No one seems to have ever thought about moderation here. Which brings us to the Thai election Sunday.

The government says they'll be clamping down on "electioneering" (or coverage) starting Saturday by blocking mentions of the election on Facebook, Twitter and on blogs over the weekend. To give you an idea, let me start by pointing out that the Army Chief, Prayuth Chan-ocha, is reassuring the public that there is no coup planned if the military is unhappy with the results. More than a few people disbelieve him.

Officially Thailand claims only a 1.1% unemployment rate and a fast-growing economy. It isn't what's reflected in the streets. Before I go into the specifics of the Thai election, let me say that fake populist movements (like the one here in Thailand), controlled and financed by wealthy plutocrats are taking hold among uneducated masses-- and not just in the U.S., but everywhere in the world. Oligarchs are gambling that they will come out ahead whether the local conservative party wins or a fascist party wins.

* In the U.S. the fascist-oriented populist movement has taken over the traditional conservative party (the GOP), while the traditional liberal party has basically morphed into a conservative party. Yesterday, for example, two top-level right-of-center Democrats, Bill Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, endorsed a tax holiday on repatriating offshore corporate profits, something the Republican Party and their financiers are demanding. Clinton and Emanuel have been politically successful by serving those identical financiers.

* In France the Socialist Party is rallying behind rapist Dominique Strauss-Kahn again, even though his "socialism" is a right-wing version of corporatism akin to Blue Dog politics in America.

* This week almost every Greek Socialist voted to commit political suicide by backing austerity measures being pushed by the predatory plutocrats demanding the masses pay for the unsustainable practices of the banksters and the wealthy.

* In India, a fundamentalist swami/shill of wealthy families, Baba Ramdev, is leading a right-wing "populist" movement that makes the Tea Party look subtle.

"AUSTERITY" WORLDWIDE IS SWEEPING THE LEGITIMATE
ASPIRATIONS OF WORKING FAMILIES INTO THE GUTTER

And Thailand is no different, although almost no one is talking about it here.

Brother and sister team

Virtually all opinion polls suggest that the opposition Pheu Thai Party (PTP) will beat the ruling party by a wide margin but will need to ally with smaller parties to form the next government. No polls can be published during the final week of the campaign.

An opposition landslide would be a major blow to enemies of exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who picked his younger sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, to lead the PTP and remains a key player in Thailand’s internecine politics. Red-shirt fans of Mr. Thaksin last year staged mass protests in Bangkok, provoking an Army-led crackdown that left more than 90 people dead.

Army chief Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha recently urged Thai voters not to elect “the same people” to run the country, a swipe at Thaksin and his allies who won the past three elections. Prayuth commanded troops in the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin and is seen as a staunch defender of the monarchy, which has become a target for militant red shirts.

But for all the posturing, the military is unlikely to stage a coup in the election aftermath, though it may try to use other means to thwart a PTP-led government. Another scenario, say analysts, is a return to a cycle of street protests by anti-Thaksin yellow shirts and partisan brinkmanship, particularly if Thaksin returns to Thailand, where he faces a two-year jail term for corruption.

“I think we’ll see another attempt to undermine an election result,” says Kevin Hewison, an expert on Thailand at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

An Army colonel says that Prayuth may strike a compromise with the PTP that keeps him in his current position, installs an ally as Defense minister, and shields his officers from prosecution over last year’s bloodshed. Diplomats say PTP leaders have hinted privately at such an accommodation, even as they publicly insist that no deals are on the table.

The background of the election is complicated. The key figure, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, isn't on the ballot-- or even in the country. The fascist-oriented populist was ousted by the military, and his sister is running. As Time pointed out yesterday, Thaksin "likes to compare himself to Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's pro-democracy movement."

Both are in conflict with their country's military-backed leaders. But that's where the similarities end. Suu Kyi is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, whereas Thaksin backed two violent anti-government protests. Suu Kyi spent more than decade under house arrest for her political convictions, while Thaksin fled rather than do time for corruption. Suu Kyi is a champion of democracy, Thaksin's critics call him an autocrat.

But as Thailand heads toward a national election this weekend, Thaksin looks set to get a new lease on his political life. The Pheu Thai party, which he controls from Dubai, is poised to defeat incumbent Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his Democrat Party. And the person he can thank for that turnaround is the woman he hand-picked to lead and who may become Thailand's first female prime minister: Yingluck Shinawatra-- his youngest sister.

Although Yingluck Shinawatra has never held office, the 44-year old executive has emerged as this election's brightest political star. She either carries the sheen of the Shinawatra name or the taint of Thaksin, depending upon a Thai's political point of view. Many aren't sure what to think; Polls show between 20% and 40% of voters remain undecided. The split reflects lingering anger about the violent protests that rocked Bangkok last year. To sway voters, Yingluck has cast herself as a pacifist: "As I am a female I do not encourage violence. I will unite Thailand,'' she told Time.

Indeed, Yingluck displays none of her brother's notorious temper. With her soft physicality, photogenic looks and ever-present smile, she has the aura of the "good girl" that so many Thais root for in television soap operas. "Her gender, in Thailand's male-dominated politics, also serves to take the edge off her party's portrayal as representing a dangerous autocratic extreme,'' says Hasan Basar, the founder of Bangkok Public Relations.

Although her opponent, Oxford-educated Abhisit, also has soap-star looks, he is backed by the military. Top generals haven't been shy about urging voters to elect what they call "good people," a euphemism for non-Pheu Thai candidates. The military's involvement "drives people away," says Pavin Chachavalpongpun of the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Singapore. "They don't appreciate the direct intervention in politics.'' It also sets up a dynamic reminiscent of Burmese politics, where powerful generals appear to bully 'The Lady.' Yingluck certainly isn't Aung San Suu Kyi, but the narrative could sway some of the undecided.

If it doesn't, Yingluck and her party are offering voters a raft of goodies: free tablet computers for one million students, a guaranteed rice price, credit cards for farmers and taxi drivers, and debt moratoriums. Economists worry that the programs will create unmanageable levels of government debt. The Democrats are offering their own populist package, but it pales in comparison to Pheu Thai's giveaways.

Although much is still unknown, most analysts predict that Pheu Thai will win the most seats but not an outright majority in Thailand's 500-seat House of Representatives. In that case, the military may lobby smaller parties to join a Democrat-led coalition government. Even if Pheu Thai wins an outright majority, or succeeds in putting together a coalition, uncertainty may persist. Victors have been disqualified in the past. "If the traditional elite decide to overturn the results, a new round of violent conflict may start,'' says Pavin.

As Prime Minister Yingluck could also generate conflict by granting her exiled brother amnesty, allowing him to return to Thailand. She's vowed to clear anyone charged with political crimes in the aftermath of the 2006 coup, including her brother. "That would be a mistake,'' says Pavin. Yingluck has now back-tracked, saying only that a committee will consider amnesties. Few, however, believe she won't facilitate her brother's return. "For a Thai, where family bonds and loyalty are extremely important, it is perfectly natural and 'right' for her to do as her older brother would want her to do,'' says Hasan.

The country is so politically polarized that some prominent Thai columnists express fear of a civil war between Thaksin camp (the rural and urban poor in the north and northeast, the Red shirts and those who oppose the military meddling in politics) and anti-Thaksin factions (the Democrat Party, the military, members of the conservative establishment, middle class voters, southerners, monarchists, and the Yellow Shirts). Jon Ungpakorn, a former Senator, warns of a "long and violent civil war." "The next opportunity for reconciliation may well not arrive again for many years," he wrote.

In that sense, Sunday's election may be the easy part. With so many post-vote scenarios and warring factions, the future of Thailand, once regarded as the most stable country in Southeast Asia, looks anything but bright.

There's a PTP rally now in Lumpini Park about two miles from our apartment. It features Yingluck, and Roland thinks we should walk over. One of our favorite restaurants in town overlooks the park, the Benjarong in the Dusit Thani Hotel. Last year it was hit by a couple of grenades fired from an M79 launcher. Let's hope it's more peaceful today. I updated the situation at my travel site

Do The Banksters Have Food Tasters Too?

Beware the exploding latte

While the Israeli military, the IDF, organizes an innovative approach in establishing a New Media unit to fight Israel's enemies on Twitter and Facebook-- I was contacted by one of their agents based in West Palm Beach this morning-- Goldman Sachs executives are getting ready to do battle as well. This morning Alice Schroeder reported for Bloomberg that "senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank."

I remember when some sharp-talking Mafia-related thugs persuaded the Japanese that they should run SONY Records. These were my colleagues in the music business and they wore pistols strapped to their ankles. I don't think they were worried about the proletariat per se, though-- just angry rappers who didn't understand the "way things work"-- meaning, how labels sell records and then keep all the profits for themselves through bookkeeping tricks that leave the "talent" with about what Goldman Sachs leaves its victims. Over the weekend I did a post about how interns are becoming the new slave labor pool for corporate America and used Warner Music as the example. I forgot to mention that with all the hundreds of layoffs and the gigantic downsizing of the company, the chairman still has a personal bodyguard on staff. Damned rappers!

In any case, I am really looking forward to the first shootout between power mad banksters from MorganStanleySmithBarney and GolmanSachs and can only pray that some crooked BankAmerica executives get caught in the cross fire. After all, it's obvious the only way these people, having paid over $6 billion in political protection money ($3,806,517,963 in lobbying since 1998 and another $2,307,542,964 in direct pay-offs to politicians themselves), will ever get any justice at all-- unless the Frankenstein's monster of the teabagger movement they created and financed turns on them!

But, alas, angry teabaggers are more likely to get all their information-- every bit of it, even if it moots their own personal reality-- from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage than from a real populist like, say, Robert Reich. Had they read Reich yesterday they might be crashing down those Wall Street barricades today.

One out of four homeowners is now under water, owing more on their homes than the homes are worth. Why? The biggest single factor behind the housing crisis is rising unemployment. According to the latest ABC-Washington Post poll, one out of every three Americans has either lost their job or lives in a household with someone who has lost a job. Today it takes two and sometimes three incomes to buy the groceries and pay the mortgage or the rent. So if one of those incomes is gone, a homeowner can’t make the payment.

The scourge of unemployment is splitting America into three groups:

1. the third just mentioned, whose households are in danger of losing their homes and whose kids are surviving on food stamps (that’s up to one in four children in America today);

2. the vast majority of Americans who are managing but worried about keeping their jobs and homes; and

3. a small number who are taking home even more winnings than they did in the boom year 2007.

Prominent among category (3) are Wall Street bankers, many of whom are now concluding their most profitable year ever. Goldman Sachs (GS) is so flush it’s preparing to give out bonuses in a few weeks totaling $17 billion. That will mean eight-figure compensation packages for lots of Goldman executives and traders. JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is rumored to have a bonus pool of around $5 billion. The three other major Wall Street banks are ratcheting up their compensation packages so their “talent” won’t be poached by Goldman or JPMorgan.

Wall Street is booming again in large part because the rest of America-- categories (1) and (2), above-- bailed it out to the tune of $700 billion last year. The Street has repaid some of that but, according to the bailout program’s inspector general, much of it is gone forever. For example, the taxpayer money that bailed out giant insurer AIG went directly through AIG (AIG) to its “counterparties” like Goldman Sachs-- to whom Tim Geithner, according to the inspector general, gave away the store. As Goldman Sachs prepares to dole out some $17 billion to its executives and traders, it’s worth noting that Goldman received $13 billion a year ago from the rest of us via AIG and Geithner, no strings attached.

Congress' Newest Caucus: The Populists

Last year Iowa Congressman Bruce Braley started work on bringing together a new House caucus that would be focusing on the economic issues most important to America's working families. With the Progressive Caucus unable to get their shit together and stand up to the corporate-oriented Blue Dogs, there has been a real need for a cohesive group of fighting Democrats to counterbalance the toxic-- and growing-- influence of the Republican-lite Blue Dogs, who have been working diligently to drag the Democratic Party in Congress further and further to the right and away from its base. And with allies like White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer aiding and abetting... well the Blue Dogs may be useful idiots but their pro-Big Business agenda is making powerful headway against the interests of America's working families.

Tuesday Braley unveiled the 21 founding members, all good Democrats, along with two confused Blue Dogs. (The Blue Dogs are fellow Iowan Leonard Boswell who nearly lost his seat to an anti-Blue Dog primary opponent in 2008, and Mike Arcuri of New York, a Kirsten Gillibrand type politician looking to be all things to all people-- and who also nearly lost his seat last year.) The rest of the new caucus is made up of Peter DeFazio (D-OR); Betty Sutton (D-OH); Steve Cohen (D-TN); Joe Courney (D-CT); Keith Ellison (D-MN); Bob Filner (D-CA); Phil Hare (D-IL); Mazie Hirono (D-HI); Hank Johnson (D-GA); Steve Kagan (D-WI); Eric Massa (D-NY); Linda Sanchez (D-CA); Jan Schakowsky (D-IL); Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH); Peter Welch (D-VT); and John Yarmouth (D-KY). Pretty great bunch overall. Braley is the chairman and the three vice-chairs are Arcuri, Pete DeFazio and Betty Sutton.

In explaining to his constituents why he joined the new caucus, Eric Massa said it would be "the only caucus in Congress devoted solely to addressing middle class economic issues." He explained the caucuses goals by breaking down their aims into 6 categories:

Creating Good Jobs and Good Retirement: Creating and retaining good-paying jobs in America, providing fair wages, proper benefits, a level playing field at the negotiating table, and ensuring American workers have secure, solvent retirement plans;

Cutting Taxes for the Middle Class: Cutting taxes for the middle class and establishing an equitable tax structure;

Affordable Healthcare: Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans;

Quality, Affordable Education: Ensuring quality primary education for all American children, and affordable college education for all who want it;

Fair Trade: Defending American competitiveness by fighting for fair trade principles;

Protecting Consumers: Protecting consumers so that Americans can have faith in the safety and effectiveness of the products they purchase.

"During this time of economic recession, America's middle class needs representation in Washington. I'm proud to join the Populist Caucus because working families deserve a voice. This caucus will work together to find common ground on policies that create good-paying jobs, make healthcare more affordable for all, and put middle class families first again."

Unlike the Blue Dogs, all the members are supporting President Obama's Stimulus legislation and they have also actively pushed for inclusion of the Buy American provisions that Republicans and Blue Dogs have fought against. Constant pressure from populists and progressives have forced some of the worst banksters, like CitiGroup and JPMorgan, to stop foreclosing on homeowners' mortgages-- at least for now.

JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said the New York company plans to halt new foreclosures for owner-occupied home loans through March 6. Dimon made the pledge in a letter to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who released it on Friday.

Citigroup's foreclosure moratorium applies to all "Citi owned first mortgage loans that are the principal residence of the customer as well as all loans Citi services where we have reached an understanding with the investor" until President Barack Obama's administration has finalized the details of the loan modification program or March 12, whichever is earlier, according to a company release.