Buybacks have gotten a bad rap from both Republicans and Democrats. But stocks would be trading at a massive discount without them.Marketsread more
Fiat Chrysler and France's Renault could soon partner up to take on the sweeping changes to the global auto industry, according to a report in the Financial Times. The...Autosread more
Microsoft shares have gained 133% since November 2015, outperforming a tech "basket of unicorns" over that stretch.Technologyread more
The president's state visit comes amid tensions with carmaker Toyota over potential auto tariffs. Trump has repeatedly threatened Japanese and European carmakers with tariffs.Traderead more
The IRS is about to release a new draft of Form W-4, which will more closely reflect the changes stemming from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. For workers, that means they'll need...Personal Financeread more
When commercial real estate investor Manny Khoshbin spent $2.2 million on the fastest production car in the world, he had no idea it would very quickly also become the...Autosread more
The Mega Millions jackpot has spilled over $400 million. It would be the ninth largest winning since the game began in 2002.Personal Financeread more
Trump was speaking at a meeting of Japanese business leaders in Tokyo during his state visit to Japan on Saturday.Marketsread more
The biggest U.S. gasoline price surge in years is running out of steam just in time for the start of the summer driving season.Energyread more
The federal minimum wage has remained $7.25 per hour since 2009. But several states, and even some companies, have since taken matters into their own hands to pay employees a...Workread more
Stocks rose on Friday, but notched weekly losses as investors worried the U.S.-China trade war is hurting economic growth.US Marketsread more
Hillary Clinton had a mostly strong debate, especially on national security in the wake of the Paris attacks. But she gave opponents in both parties one huge opening with her remarks on her support from Wall Street and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Pressed by Sen. Bernie Sanders about her strong financial support from Wall Street, Clinton said: "'I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked … Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.'"
Clinton's rivals wasted no time jumping on the comments as factually wrong and deeply insensitive. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley on Monday ripped Clinton, calling it "shameful" that the former secretary of state and New York U.S. senator linked 9/11 to her donations from Wall Street.
"I thought that moment, frankly, was pretty shameful. I don't believe that the people watching were applauding the notion that Secretary Clinton was pumping out this smokescreen and wrapping herself in the tragedy of 9/11," O'Malley said on CNN's "New Day" program. "I don't think they saw that as something appropriate to do, to mask her coziness and her closeness to Wall Street and all of the architects of the crash of 2008."
Republicans got in on the act as well. RNC chair Reince Priebus Tweeted: "@HillaryClinton, you reached a new low tonight by using 9/11 to defend your campaign donations."
You can bet ad makers will have a field day with the remarks, using them to show that Clinton will say just about anything to win. And it did not get any better later in the debate when Clinton was asked to respond to a Twitter question from someone who said it was inappropriate to link Wall Street donations to 9/11.
Clinton's response? "I am sorry if whoever tweeted that had that impression." Saying it is the questioner's fault for having that "impression" is the worst kind of non-apology.
The gaffe is not likely to seriously threaten Clinton's march to the Democratic nomination. But it does raise some serious questions.
The first is: How could she not have had a better prepared answer?
O'Malley and Sanders have made Clinton's Wall Street ties and positions the key pillar of their assault on her. Clinton is known for meticulous preparation.
She could have easily just recited her own support for stronger bank regulation and breaking up banks if they pose a threat and said Wall Street should expect no favors from her in the White House.
But she didn't do that. It seems like the 9/11 remark was in fact a planned part of her response. And if that's the case … huh? Who in the campaign thought that was a smart idea?
Forget the fact that much of "Wall Street" had already moved to midtown Manhattan by 2001. The fact is that Wall Street's support for Clinton has little to nothing to do with her response to the attacks. Do they appreciate that she was helpful? Sure.
But mostly they view her as a far more palatable choice for president than Sanders and O'Malley. That's in large part because she does not support a re-imposition of the Glass-Steagall wall between traditional and investment banking. It's also because they think she would be better for the economy overall than Sanders or O'Malley or many of the potential Republican nominees.
They also support her, as Max Abelson writes, because they view her approach to financial regulation as far more nuanced and intelligent than the blunt instrument method favored by her opponents. The comments about 9/11 left many of Clinton's Wall Street fans bewildered.
The other thing the comments remind people of is Clinton's penchant for fumbling with a big lead. She did it in 2008 against Barack Obama who came from far behind to deny her the Democratic nomination. There is no one like Obama running this time, so the mistake will likely not cause much short-term damage. But it will come back to haunt her in the general election, especially if Clinton is running against someone from the more populist wing of the GOP.
And the fear among Democrats is that it's just the first in what could be a string of mishaps to come that might cost them what should be a very winnable election given an improving economy and an electoral college map that favors them. Many ask if large banks are still "too big to fail." The question now is whether Clinton is too clumsy to win.
—Ben White is Politico's chief economic correspondent and a CNBC contributor. He also authors the daily tip sheet Politico Morning Money [politico.com/morningmoney]. Follow him on Twitter .