salliekrawcheck.jpgDoubtful! Oh, but not so, says the the Post, claiming that not only does SK want the job, but that she “went public with her ambitions to run the bank” yesterday on CNBC. Those of you who saw the appearance live might be wondering when exactly Krawcheck revealed her plot to take over Bank of America. Were you in the bathroom at the time? Was the TV on mute? Were you momentarily distracted by Caruso and Cabrera? Apparently, according to the paper, it was when the Kraw made the statement that she’s “very much focused” on what she’s doing running BofA’s wealth-management unit. If that doesn’t say “Krawcheck for CEO 2010,” the Post don’t know what does. Confused? Let us assist you in following the giant leaps in logic.




Krawcheck was responding to Charlie “I’m workin’ the phones here” Gasparino’s demand that she tell him point blank whether or not she’s after her boss’s job. Although CG only gave SK two options (“Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no?”), she went with scenario C, which Gaspo seemed to interpret as an affirmative (you can tell by the “nailed it” look on his face at the end of the clip). The Post is sold, are we? Take a looksee at the damming evidence and let us know. (Krawcheck unveils her plan at 14:15.)

Comments (51)

  1. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:08 AM

    I thought she kept her kraw pretty well in check.

  2. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:08 AM

    Would that make Montag leave?
    - Beleaguered BAC Shareholder

  3. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:10 AM

    I’d hit it.

  4. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:10 AM

    @3 I’d fire it.
    -vik

  5. Posted by mre | October 6, 2009 at 10:11 AM

    Would you hit it? Discuss.

  6. Posted by mre | October 6, 2009 at 10:12 AM

    Would you hit it? Discuss.

  7. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:13 AM

    I like when sk tells cg “we don’t go back that far” in response to him claiming they’ve known each other for years.

  8. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:13 AM

    charlie gasparino is not a friend of mine.
    -the kraw

  9. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:15 AM

    @4 that’s because you hate women.
    -zoe c

  10. Posted by CoveredLong | October 6, 2009 at 10:15 AM

    @5 – Anyone who says no is an idiot, a homo, Greg, a ZH reader, Tax Chick, or an idiot, a homo, Greg, a ZH reader, Tax Chick, or…wait, what?
    Yes, and I’d probably choose the pay to play option if I had to.

  11. Posted by pfluger | October 6, 2009 at 10:16 AM

    When CG, the David Halberstam of the financial journalism gig jumped in, the interview went to shit.
    The Kraw’s initial response to the Gasser’s question was the appropriate one — she laughed it off.
    She knows it all about “da self promotion” of a hack.

  12. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:18 AM

    @11 admit it, I nailed that broad to the wall.
    -cg

  13. Posted by merkin capital partners | October 6, 2009 at 10:18 AM

    “Workin da phones” = PBS pledge drive with Danny Tartabull.

  14. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:19 AM

    @5
    I’d hit it.
    “it moved,” however, unfortunately for me, it is moving continuously and I have a meeting in a couple minutes.

  15. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:19 AM

    @11
    Look man if you think I’m a self promoting hack you should buy my upcoming book to see that I’m truly the Walter Cronkite of financial journalism. Oh and…. dis n dat!

  16. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM

    Dis ‘n dat.
    -CG

  17. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM

    I would repeatedly hide da salami in between her meat curtains.
    I am not Dennis Kneale

  18. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:26 AM

    She should do a cooking show.
    -Larry S.

  19. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:27 AM

    ORGASMEEEEEP!

  20. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:33 AM

    after I leave, do you think I can hit it, legally? I dont need andrew cuomo on my ass for anything else.
    -KL

  21. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM

    This skank is no Erin Callan. I know the recruiter with the CEO mandate. I’ll suggest EC.

  22. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:38 AM

    I find her sensy

  23. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:38 AM

    @13 ftw
    For a donation of only $40 you get a tote bag with the likeness of KL holding a bottle of Boone’s Farm Strawberry Hill

  24. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM

    @21 “snank”? really? kill yourself.

  25. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:43 AM

    @24, I believe he said “skank”

  26. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 10:46 AM

    I love the.. (at 0:47)
    “People are getting a little bit tired of the…RUBBERNECKING…(pause)…”

  27. Posted by Becky Boot Fan | October 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM

    snank is the new slore/whunt.

  28. Posted by NakedShort | October 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM

    Too attractive; didn’t hear the words coming out of her mouth

  29. Posted by Tax Chick | October 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM

    @Covered
    You are right, but I don’t like the company in which I find myself.

  30. Posted by pfluger | October 6, 2009 at 10:58 AM

    @12/cg:
    Yeah, Charlie, you were great, as usual. Almost up there with MM, another renowned “journalist.”
    Your financial expertise is almost (not quite there) at his level. I like your “insights” into the rating agency oligopoly problems very much:
    “Its da issuer pays model! Da issuer pays model. I’m tellin’ ya, its da issuer pays model. Dat’s what I’m tellin’ ya.”
    You have the insights of a former amateur boxer. LD looks like a genius compared to you. Greg writes better prose than you. You are a leech. A bum.

  31. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 11:01 AM

    i have thought she was kinda sexy since the 2002 cover of Fortune Mag…still do.

  32. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 11:01 AM

    The BofA board knows you’d hit it. But would you work for it?

  33. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 11:08 AM

    @30
    Did you write a fuckin’ book on da crisis? Dats what I thought, you figlio di puttana.
    -CG

  34. Posted by C-Gaspo | October 6, 2009 at 11:10 AM

    @30/pfluger
    Did I disgrace you in the gym or something? I’m sorry if by me punishing my lats next to you attempting to bench the bar I made you look bad in front of the ladies, but don’t try to wipe out mah rep brah, just cuz’ you’re a puny little Nancy.

  35. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 11:11 AM

    OK, let me suggest that if you’re a man, the answer is no. You’d rather work for Lloyd. When you examine Lloyd’s gold-plated scrot (with awe) you can imagine, “I can get one like that, encrusted with jewels too; yes, mine will be better.” But when you examine Sallie’s gold-plated, platinum filigreed labia, you draw a blank. Feeling yourself, you think, “huh, this is not like that.”

  36. Posted by pfluger | October 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM

    You fuckin’ cawlin’ me a figlio di puttana, ya fessacchione??!.
    If I didn’t have to be workin’ da phones today, I’d come ova dare and woik ova yer finocchio mug, ya bastid!
    Glossary:
    figlio di puttana m. (vulgar) son of a bitch.
    finocchio m. (vulgar) queer, fairy, gay.
    fessacchione/a n. a [complete] idiot; (lit.): big idiot.

  37. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM

    How’d she get the Fisher account?

  38. Posted by turd_ferguson | October 6, 2009 at 11:30 AM

    I like chicks with short hair, they tidy up nice and quick following office BJs.

  39. Posted by CoveredLong | October 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM

    @29/TC – Allow me to re-phrase. What I meant to say was: ‘anybody who says no is either, Giselle, Sallie Krawcheck, Bess, or Tax Chick.’
    Better?

  40. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 11:56 AM

    @31 Fortune = People mag for middle managers

  41. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM

    TC, we’re all friends here, ‘fess up: you’d totally hit it.

  42. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

    @37. I am Marcus Halberstam. Who is Patrick Bateman?

  43. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM

    handbridge, no question

  44. Posted by Tax Chick | October 6, 2009 at 1:51 PM

    @Covered
    Much better company.
    @41
    If I say yes, there will be a flurry of girl-on-girl fantasy posts. Let’s stay focused here people!

  45. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 3:22 PM
  46. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 3:23 PM

    someone has to say it:
    it tees up some nice girl on girl action between SK and MWhitney, with the former trading favors to the latter in consideration of favorable coverage…..

  47. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 3:23 PM

    someone has to say it:
    it tees up some nice girl on girl action between SK and MWhitney, with the former trading favors to the latter in consideration of favorable coverage…..

  48. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 3:23 PM

    someone has to say it:
    it tees up some nice girl on girl action between SK and MWhitney, with the former trading favors to the latter in consideration of favorable coverage…..

  49. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 3:23 PM

    someone has to say it:
    it tees up some nice girl on girl action between SK and MWhitney, with the former trading favors to the latter in consideration of favorable coverage…..

  50. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM

    enough

  51. Posted by guest | October 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM

    already

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.