she would provide of a strong focus on reforming business regulation and equitable income distribution. Tim Kaine doesn't give that political signal, but misinterpreting that to mean he would not be for that at all is what I mean by black OR white. A couple of analysts I read think that Warren could actually be counterproductive as VP, replacing chances for cooperation on reform between Clinton and business with a monolithically adversarial relationship that eventually accomplished less than could have been.
I'm not crazy about Kaine's positions on those two regulatory tweaks, based far more on the fact that Warren is opposed than anything I know, but that doesn't mean they aren't sensible. Kaine supports tailoring regulation to risk profiles rather than just asset classes. Dodd-Frank has flexibility to allow this specifically written into its provisions. Some wondering why this now think these positions may be meant to send a signal to the finance industry that a good working relationship will be possible. In any case, I do know that the regulatory structure we build has to work well, fairly and sensibly, in order to be strong and eventually be supported even by a good number of those regulated. (And, yes, many businesspeople do support good regulation.) A punitive and dysfunctional structure will help its enemies destroy it.
Frankly, even though Obama and Clinton both like and admire Kaine, and in fact almost everyone seems to (a majority black city council Kaine was once on choosing him for mayor is typical of his relations with his colleagues), I've been wondering why would she consider him when the election for his Senate seat might fill it with a Republican.
WaPo:
At the same time, Republicans acknowledge that Kaine is not an easy target. “It’s hard to find any flies on Tim Kaine,” said former congressman Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). “He’s a thoroughly honest and decent man.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
