Skip to main content

Elizabeth Warren supposedly wanted what some people are calling President Obama a sellout and a coward for.

I won't call any users out, but a search for Elizabeth Warren will bring you a whole host of diaries with comments praising her and calling the President a coward, saying he fucked up by not doing things their way. But what happens when the subject itself approves of the way she is getting her position, and also wanted it to be that way. Have any of you read the Huffpost article titled: Elizabeth Warren Didn't Want Permanent Appointment To CFPB: Frank. This isn't some unnamed source either, it's Barney "frickin" Frank, who is a friend, admirer and supporter of Ms. Warren. Here's what he had to say.

Elizabeth Warren made it clear to the White House while it was debating her nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that she was not interested in a five-year term to run the agency. Barney Frank, a Warren ally, delivered that message to the White House, he told HuffPost in an interview Thursday.

"She always said she didn't want to be there as a permanent director. Some of the liberals are worried about it. It's almost an insult to Elizabeth. She wouldn't take this if there was the slightest impediment to her doing the job," he said.

Which is exactly what some of the people here have been saying since this hit the blogs. If Elizabeth Warren is so great do you really think she'd accept a meaningless positon that is only for show? That is meant to make progressives happy, but doesn't hold any real power?

A lot of people also believe that she only reports to Geithner, which isn't true, she reports to him, and the President. Which means if she wants to, she can go straight to President Obama whenever she feels.

An administration official said that Warren will be officially named on Friday as an "assistant to the president," the same title that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other top officials hold, as well as a special adviser to the Treasury, overseeing the establishment of the CFPB.

I don't know, if you ask me the President is still a coward for not nominating her to a permanent position where she'd be filibustered to hell for over a year by Republicans and probably even some Democrats like Chris Dodd who oppose her nomination. /s

The administration, however, still has the option to nominate Warren to a permanent position.

Frank said that he was "delighted" by the administration's choice. "I want to give credit to Tim Geithner for working this out. There's absolutely no chance that she will be anything less than fully independent. She wouldn't have taken the job," he said.

The administration's announcement has been greeted with some skepticism in progressive circles, as Frank acknowledged. Bob Kuttner, a co-editor of The American Prospect, was one such skeptic, but as the outlines of her new position become clear, he has embraced it. "This strategy is a win-win, on several grounds. It gives Warren full authority to set up the agency, without having to run the gantlet of confirmation hearings and a likely Republican filibuster," he wrote in a HuffPost blog post Thursday . . ."

Anybody still think Warren is being sidelined? Anybody still think that she won't hold any real power? Or that she is being duped by our bought out President who is a coward? That Timothy Geithner is going to be the one who holds the power over her and she won't be able to do anything about it?

If this doesn't change your mind about this situation, then you can't keep calling the President alone a sellout and a coward, you also have to call Elizabeth Warren that too!

So what say you Daily Kos!?

Originally posted to TrahmalG on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:05 PM PDT.

Poll

Is Ms. Warren a sellout now too?

44%58 votes
14%19 votes
15%20 votes
25%34 votes

| 131 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Too bad story's morphing into a progressive... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GreenSooner, CitizenOfEarth
      ...slam-fest. Frankly, that truly is pure bullshit.

      I've posted quite a bit on Elizabeth Warren over the past couple of years, and the reality is she has always had great disdain for Beltway politics. I'm not going to provide any links here, but the fact of the matter is the entire "I wasn't interested in spending five years in Washington" line fits in quite legitimately with her commentary on this matter.

      The truth--which has NOTHING TO DO with the anti-progressive slam-fest that some are attempting to morph this into now--is that, UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES, she most likely WOULD have taken a more formal appointment.

      CONSTANT, ongoing references from her and others (all along the road to this day) clearly indicated she wanted to see how this played out. (AND, as she's said herself, on many occasions, under the right circumstancs she most definitely would have considered the appointment!)

      Or, do ALL of the comments from folks like Dodd, Frank and many others--right on up to the President, himself--indicating she WAS being vetted for the top job, on a MUCH MORE FORMAL basis, somehow, miraculously get ignored on a day like today, just to drive home a TOTALLY FALSE ANTI-PROGRESSIVE MEME now, such as the one being put forth in this diary and elsewhere?

      We just spent a good THREE MONTHS watching this play out in the MSM and on Capitol Hill. And, it was NEVER stated by ANYONE, until today, that Warren was NOT interested in the job.

      The President, and others have spent the better part of the past few weeks speculating and jawboning in general, and in public, about the issues related to a formal appointment and confirmation.

      But, today, somehow, we're now supposed to accept that she wasn't interested in it, at all?

      To that I say: THAT'S A TOTAL CROCK OF PUBLIC RELATIONS BULLSHIT.

      In fact, what's happening now is completely new spin which runs counter to what just about EVERYONE in power has been saying for MANY, MANY months to the contrary.

      So, as a Progressive, I'm going to enjoy the day, despite the not-too-veiled, lameass attempt by many to turn this into something which it's not.

      This is not a Progressive slam-fest. In fact, if it wasn't for Progressives pushing hard for this, this day might never have arrived, in all its twisted grandeur.

      And, please, cut the bullshit, parroting line about her never wanting the job in the first place.

      The fact is, WARREN WAS APPREHENSIVE about this entire dog and pony show from day one. Is there ANY indication that she did NOT want the job under different circumstances? (Either directly from her, or as it was chewed around in public by the President, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, since day one, up until now?) HELL NO!

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 06:29:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's hilarious how silent they've all been... (20+ / 0-)

    since word came out on that earlier today.

    They've been carrying on with the conspiracy-whining at huffpo pretty good though, I saw.

    I'm sure the ones here are just waiting for the next false-outrage to start their obamaisalwayswrong whining again.

    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:10:30 PM PDT

  •  You'll get crickets (8+ / 0-)

    or a smattering of unhinged wailing.

    O snail, climb Mount Fuji, but slowly, slowly! - Issa

    by bumblebums on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:11:36 PM PDT

  •  You don't know dkos 'progressives'. (10+ / 0-)

    Just watch them spin it away in 3,2,1.

    Get in Gear
    2010 or Bust

    by amk for obama on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:12:00 PM PDT

  •  It has been decided here that she's prepping for (4+ / 0-)

    2012 to take out Scott Brown.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:18:54 PM PDT

  •  Given Warren's public record... (26+ / 0-)

    ...I think she will work very hard not to be turned into window dressing, and that's good, because we need a CFPB that matches the tough, pro-consumer operation that she has wanted it to be since she came up with the idea.

    And given Larry Summers's and Tim Geithner's public records, I think it's obvious they will work very hard at every opportunity to try turn her into window dressing.

    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:21:53 PM PDT

  •  Announcement on Friday at 1:30 PM ET. :-) n/t (8+ / 0-)

    "When you want to go forward ... you put it in 'D,' "When you want to go back ... you put it in 'R.' " ... President Obama 8/2.

    by BarackStarObama on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:23:57 PM PDT

  •  Elizabeth Warren is highly respected.... (4+ / 0-)

    ..for being able to cut through the fog and deliver a clear message about what went wrong, who did it, and what needs to be done about it. She speaks to people in a way that everyone can understand. She is an intellectual who comes from a humble background. She is also wellspoken and plain spoken. That is a dangerous combination and one the scared the thugs on the other side and their corporate masters.

    And that's why we wanted her as head of the agency she suggested. You will forgive us our disappointment. Bush got John Bolton appointed as Ambassador to an entity he wanted to destroy. Due to missteps and squandered momentum, Obama is conceding he can't get Warren appointed to the agency she created. And so it is a blessing wrapped in a disappointment.

    It is a grave disappointment to watch this administration about to hand the gavel to John Boehner and deeply disappointed that he didn't confront the enemies of the people right out of the gate, instead of trying to appease them.

    British Petroleum: I think that means it's foreign oil.

    by Bensdad on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:31:57 PM PDT

    •  Why do you insist on saying it's because (18+ / 0-)

      Obama is conceding he couldn't get an appointment, when it was Elizabeth Warren, all along, who appears not have wanted an appointment.

      That's the whole point of this diary. You can't just say: "Wow, Elizabeth Warren! And not only that, SHE set the terms of her position."

      - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

      by second gen on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:36:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Appears not to... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, Garrett, TrahmalG
        ...have wanted the appointment. She "appears" not to have wanted a five year stint. I don't see anything to suggest that she "appears" not to have wanted the position in the first place, or that she would not have taken it if it had been offered to her. That is clearly what they wish to hint. I'll concede that. Still covering.

        British Petroleum: I think that means it's foreign oil.

        by Bensdad on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:44:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'd like to see the evidence for... (0+ / 0-)

        ...one part of your statement, that she "all along" did not want the appointment. There is nothing in the public record in that regard until Frank's comment in the past 24 hours. People change their minds about what they want. And Warren was certainly not saying publicly as recently as two months ago that she didn't want the job. She did not say yes then to people who asked her if they should stop pushing her for the job.

        Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:08:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Awww the cute wall of nitpicking goes up! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou, vc2, Imhotepsings

          lols

          Now run along and concoct a logically consistent conspiracy to "prove" that you're not nitpicking.

          Meanwhile, the rest of us will celebrate that Warren has been placed in a position to implement the new agency immediately, and sufficiently.

          I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

          by punditician on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:21:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As I said yesterday when the news first... (4+ / 0-)

            ...became known - and people here who had previously said it doesn't really matter who gets the job started pretending they had been foursquare in her corner all along - I fully embrace the appointment in great part because she's tough and will fight. So your claim that you will be celebrating and I won't is b(ogu)s.

            But when somebody argues that she "all along" didn't want the job based on what's being said now, and mocks people who say she did want the job, it is incumbent on those making that argument to provide some evidence. In this case, my "nitpicking" is done because that evidence does not exist and is contrary to the public record.

            Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:28:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As is ALL the speculation that happens here (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foufou, amk for obama, VickiL, Imhotepsings, JL

              at Daily Kos on a daily basis, with hair on fire, "Obama is a coward" or "Obama is just like Bush" diaries around here.

              I'm still waiting on their "evidence".

              - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

              by second gen on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:31:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Get with the program. "all along" is IMPORTANT! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                foufou

                lols

                I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

                by punditician on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  In fact, although you think lols makes your... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  businessdem

                  ...case, "all along" is the KEY point of his rejoinder to bensdad. President Obama didn't appoint her, it is claimed, because she didn't want the job from the get-go. Words mean something.

                  Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                  by Meteor Blades on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:58:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  (facepalm) (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    foufou

                    No, tiger.

                    If the words "all along" had not appeared in that reply, the overall force would not have been affected one whit.

                    The primary force of the reply was to point out that the obamaisabumbler guy had no evidence of that claim. That fact is completely unaffected by the truth or falsity of an alternative explanation.

                    Durr.

                    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

                    by punditician on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:04:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If the words "all along" had not appeared... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...in that rejoinder, I would not have said anything. But those words reinforced the commenter's claim that Obama had no choice regarding an appointment because Warren didn't want one and, by implication, had made that fact clear to the President from the get-go when negotiations for the job she is getting were begun. In fact, none of us knows whether she started those negotiations at that point or not. None of us knows what those negotiations entailed. But what we do know is that she did not "stop" when people asked less than two months ago whether they should push her for the post.

                      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                      by Meteor Blades on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:25:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  OK - there's no evidence that she didn't change (6+ / 0-)

              her mind. So there's no evidence Obama isn't a coward and a corporate shill. Neither is there evidence to the contrary.

              There's such a notion as the benefit of the doubt.

              But apparently for some kossacks it doesn't apply to Barack Obama.

              I'm not saying you're one of them, Meteorblades. But  there are several among regular rec-list dwellers on this site.

        •  Oh. Okay, MB (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou

          Well, read the article in the diary.

          Why would Elizabeth Warren need to consult with anyone about what she wanted to do about this position? Why does she not deserve respect, rather than the assumption that she's ignorant and doesn't know how to negotiate for herself.

          It's sad to see evidence that you're also on this bandwagon.

          - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

          by second gen on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:29:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't comment about things I haven't read... (5+ / 0-)

            ...Show me where I have disrespected Warren. Show me where I even hinted that she is ignorant and doesn't know how to negotiate. Have you met her? Talked with her? Asked her specific questions? I have. And I hold her in the highest regard.

            What happens going forward is what matters now. And, like most others here and, I suspect, throughout the left blogosphere, I hope she produces the toughest possible CFPB as her legacy to us all. Nothing about this situation would please me more.

            But, truly, I sometimes have to laugh when I hear some people condescendingly saying they are reality-based but others who have a different view live in fantasy land when they simultaneously display such naivete about how politics actually operates.  

            Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:42:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Bush did not get John Bolton appointed. (6+ / 0-)

      He did a recess appointment.

      "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

      by seanwright on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:42:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd read that article, (6+ / 0-)

      The administration's announcement has been greeted with some skepticism in progressive circles, as Frank acknowledged. Bob Kuttner, a co-editor of The American Prospect, was one such skeptic, but as the outlines of her new position become clear, he has embraced it. "This strategy is a win-win, on several grounds. It gives Warren full authority to set up the agency, without having to run the gantlet of confirmation hearings and a likely Republican filibuster," he wrote in a HuffPost blog post Thursday . . ."

      "A nation that continues to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." *Martin Luther King, Jr.*

      by TrahmalG on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:44:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  actually, Bensdad (13+ / 0-)

      this is a perfect set-up.

      I have been a long time and vocal supporter of EW
      in fact, I've had several correspondences with her.

      I have studied her work and lectures and read her... extensively.
      she will have the power to set this up the way she envisioned it
      after all, not only was it her idea, she also insisted with the president and his team
      that to compromise this out of the FIN-REG legislation would be a very big mistake.
      she held her ground and insisted that the admin do the same.

      no matter how this has played out here on Daily Kos
      this is a big win for the average American.
      we have a real advocate now.... and the game is likely to change.

      she will likely start with developing straight forward contracts (which is her specialty) addressing the serious abuses by the financial services industry on consumers... especially in regards to consumer loans and credit cards.

      she is a fighter and her sole mission is to make sure American families and consumers are getting a fair deal; one that is understandable.

      she is trying to shift the stranglehold the financial sector has on middle-class Americans.
      tossing the ball back to us.

      "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

      by ridemybike on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:52:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i agree with almost all of your post (4+ / 0-)

        one word. Now, bothers me.

        It feeds into the leftnet fantasy that until it forced Warren we had no strong advocates.

        Like Geithner and Obama haven't been strong advocates despite every indication it was they who made this happen.

        •  Someday, you know, after the Obama... (10+ / 0-)

          ...Presidency is over, perhaps before, there will be some books written by insiders, maybe by Warren herself, certainly by some others. And then we'll have a much better idea of what really has gone down on a range of issues. It's tough to know what's going on behind the scenes while things are still happening.

          I'm not predicting what those books will say specifically. But I guarantee you that people who are more critical of Obama and those who are less critical will both discover things in those books that contradict what they're saying is going on right now. How can I make this assertion? Because that's how it's been since insiders started writing books about Presidencies.

          Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:19:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I suspect you are spot on, MB. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OLinda, blueocean

            It will be illuminating, I'm sure.

            anyway, I'm glad to see this movement regarding Warren...

            also, a request...
            a few months ago you posted a front page article with a video of EW giving a lecture.... it wasn't YouTube or KosTV, maybe Vimeo?
            I think it was at the Hoover or Roosevelt Institute...???
            Not very long, 20 or 30 minutes during which she revealed how cc contracts went from being one page to now being like thirty-something pages.

            I can't seem to find it.... maybe you could link it back to me?
            I wanted to share it with a few friends.

            and, thanks for your advocacy on behalf of EW.
            when I think it through, it really could change the game.

            "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

            by ridemybike on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:33:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  so? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            foufou

            So it's ok to spend months making shit up about how everyone hated Warren because they are all such wallstreet whores, then later take credit for forcing them to take her.

            Because history always proves nobody is always right?

            Nice gig complaining from the left.

            •  OK. I WILL make a prediction. When the... (5+ / 0-)

              ...truth ultimately comes out, it will be shown that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner were absolutely opposed to Elizabeth Warren setting up the CFPB and they sought to keep her from doing so until it was decided - at the top, for whatever reasons - that she would get the job. And I will also make a flat-out assertion. Senator Chris Dodd is not happy about this, but when he smiles about it for the cameras tomorrow, some people will claim that he obviously wasn't against her all along.

              Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:50:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  fair enough (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                foufou, Imhotepsings

                but since your in the mood for prognostication, how about some mind reading and give me a theory for ...

                - at the top, for whatever reasons -

                •  Since it wasn't just the left netroots that... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sharoney, mallyroyal

                  ...wanted her in the job but liberals in Congress who sought the post for her. While those petitions to the White House may not have had any impact, those in Congress may have done so.

                  There was, no doubt, a political calculation made - whatever the President's personal views (pro or con) about Warren. Would appointing her (and the means of that appointment) piss off more people than not appointing her. That kind of calculus is not simple and is, I suspect, one of the things that is turning Obama's hair gray at a fairly rapid pace.

                  Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                  by Meteor Blades on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:07:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think you're probably right on all of this MB (5+ / 0-)

                    but I think there's a good lesson in there for us, which is that we sometimes need to take a deep breath and avoid the temptation to think we know everything that is going on behind the scenes and stop making these sweeping assertions about people's motivations based on our own mind-reading abilities.  I agree it may be fascinating to see how wrong we had it a few years down the road.  On both sides.

                    With politics there are obviously lots of things in play, not least of which is the kind of calculus you discussed.  We may not like it, but it's what's necessary when not everyone agrees, and many are willing to fight to get their view of things implemented.  And thank god for that, since that's what makes it a democracy, messy as it is.

                    I think our job is to put our views out there.  I don't hesitate to write to whitehouse.gov, or to OFA, or to my Senators, and Congressman, all three of whom are pretty decent democrats, to tell them when I think they've got it wrong, or need to push more.  What I don't do is assume that I necessarily have 100% of the information about why they acted the way they did, and that helps me avoid a pissy tone that frankly I think would undermine my own advocacy, as well as the ability of these people to get more of what I want done, done.  

                    I don't think we shut up, and I don't think people advocating for Warren strenuously were wrong at all.  But I do find the "Obama only did this because we made him, and he still tried hard to hamstring Warren as much as possible" tone from some quarters pretty unhelpful.  Let's claim the victory for the American people, celebrate that such a wonderful voice will now be in charge of that agency, and work to support the kinds of changes she wants to make happen.  If we see her hitting roadblocks, then we object, but we need to be able to buttress the victories too, not just bemoan the losses, or we just hurt ourselves.

                    (Sadly, in Kathmandu no longer.)

                    by American in Kathmandu on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:01:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I agree completely, including the criticism... (7+ / 0-)

                      ...of those who say we made this happen. As I've said all along - and not just tonight - we should celebrate this as a victory, even though there are caveats attached.

                      But there is another critique, too, I think. Some people seem to believe that there is no political calculus going on in the White House, that there are no gatekeepers  trying to keep certain points of view (of presidential appointees!) from reaching the President (and succeeding at doing so), no jockeying for position, no - dare I say it? - politics as usual. This is utterly naive.

                      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                      by Meteor Blades on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:17:48 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  The lesson here is that if we push (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sharoney, kj in missouri

                      the Administration leftward, every once in a while, we do get something we want. If we don't push, we get nothing at all.

                      The lesson is: Keep pushing.

                      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                      by PhilJD on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 05:30:45 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I absolutely agree we should push (5+ / 0-)

                        where I may disagree with some here is in the methods we use to push, and in whether it's more important to get the policies we want, or the credit for it.  Sometimes we forget the basic truth that we really don't want to make our own guys look bad in front of others if not necessary, because, well, it weakens them and makes it harder for us to get what we want if they're weaker.  I'm not at all saying public criticism is wrong, just that when we engage in it we need to be very conscious of what we're hoping to get at the end of the day, and whether our tactics and methods help, or hurt.

                        (Sadly, in Kathmandu no longer.)

                        by American in Kathmandu on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 06:23:52 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You are the very voice of reason today...n/t (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          kj in missouri, QES
                        •  Should we gripe if we get policies & appointments (0+ / 0-)

                          we want, but the Administration neglects to give credit where it's due?  No, of course not.

                          However, should the Administration, out of their own sense of fair play, acknowledge that certain decisions have been made at least in part as the result of insistence from progressives? Yes, they really should.

                          Politically, it matters very little or not at all, but personally, I lose a bit of respect for anyone, in any walk of life, who can't note the role that others have played in making good things happen.

                          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                          by PhilJD on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:21:59 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I hear you on the respect (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PhilJD, Deep Texan

                            thing, but sometimes, honestly, a quiet nod in your direction can show just as much respect if it means a tacit agreement to not paint a public picture that may be accurate but may undermine the Admin's next move on something else they know you greatly want.

                            Sometimes in development work, you'll find the following scenario - a weak but reformist government is trying to chart a new course and wants the public to see them as different.  But their money and expertise is limited.  So the donors get together and decide to do something to help - let's say it's providing Vitamin A capsules to every kid under 5 in the country.  Now, we can plant our flags - put our own country/agency logos on every station handing them out, and make that a condition of us providing the capsules to begin with because we want the citizens there to know we did it.  Or, we can take a longer term view and say, well, we want the people to see this gov't is trying to do it better, and it's frankly in everyone's best interest for them to get the credit, and for the whole role of outside donors not to get all the coverage because it just gets used by the opponents to undermine the legitimacy of the govt in a way that helps no one.

                            No way is this remotely similar - just the way I'm trained to think in my world, and why I guess I react the way I do.

                            (Sadly, in Kathmandu no longer.)

                            by American in Kathmandu on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:42:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, hard to argue with that--except (0+ / 0-)

            that I think you're being too neutral. As more is revealed, I think it is the left side of the Party that will be more outraged.

            Forgive me, but your comment here is a bit too centrist for my usual taste.

            I'm unhappy that Obama has taken such a cowardly position on the Warren appointment. And yes, that's how I see it.

            It is a calling ... to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Edward M. Kennedy, True Compass

            by Timaeus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:41:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  agreed, which is why I don't lace my opinions (0+ / 0-)

            with any sense of certainty about the motivations of the admin.

            Solidarity Now. (We can continue this fight later). See you in Washington 10-02-10. (thanks reddbierd)

            by mallyroyal on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 07:18:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  geithner was not an especially strong (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou, Imhotepsings

          advocate for this particular piece of the overall legislation
          and president Obama became a strong advocate once she presented the idea.

          you do know that it was her idea...?

          there is no leftnet fantasy (not that i'm aware of) that feels we had no strong advocate... it doesn't fit the actual circumstances.
          she had a brilliant idea, sold it to congress and the WH
          and then asked us to keep fighting for it.

          fwiw, that's what she specifically told me to do and I haven't stopped fighting since.

          I am kind of new here, and often I am confused by the division...
          aren't we all on the left?

          I do understand that there are degrees of "leftism"...
          still, I pretty much thought we were on the same team.

          "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

          by ridemybike on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:20:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  righteous (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            foufou, vc2, Imhotepsings

            it is becoming difficult to find a word to describe the hampshers, greenwalds, sirotas who insist the administration is chock full of people who have no interest in liberal policy promotion.

            like I said. I think we've had strong advocates all over the white house since Jan 09.

            Your use of the word now implied to me that you too felt that until this job offer we hadn't had people like her working for us in the administration.

            •  well... i don't know that we do have anyone (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueocean

              quite like her.
              maybe Dawn Johnson...??

              I mean she's not a politician nor served in any cabinet capacity
              and I remember during the TARP hearings she equally went after everyone
              on all sides of the equation.

              when I watched those hearings, I was struck by her non-partisanship.
              her focus was on getting to the facts... she just couldn't or wouldn't get into the politics of anything.

              perhaps using the word now was not necessary
              I don't agree with the notion that there are no people in the admin who have no interest in liberal policy promotion.

              I am really only speaking about this particular thing
              because I have spent some time understanding it.

              like  said, I believe we're on the same team.

              "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

              by ridemybike on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:43:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes we are (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Imhotepsings

                and that team includes Geithner and Obama who were fierce enough advocates they offered Warren a job she happily accepted by all reports.

                •  I never said they weren't on the team (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sharoney, vc2, Imhotepsings

                  I couldn't be happier that president Obama found a way
                  (quite clever it appears) to get EW in there.

                  and I also couldn't have been happier when I heard Geithner come out in support.

                  now... Dodd on the other hand.... well, he was too willing to just concede
                  and not even try to fight for her.

                  that didn't make any sense at all.

                  "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

                  by ridemybike on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:04:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Considering that geithner has overseen some (4+ / 0-)

                    of the strongest blocks put to wall street of any Treasury Secretary, helped the economy turn around and fought for reform (even if it was not "tear down the banks") I have come to the conclusion that few are really looking at him with a clear head, instead they made up their minds at the appointment phase and are sticking to it no matter what the evidence shows.

                    He may not be the lefts vision of perfection for Treas Sec but to suggest he is only for wall street is ludicrous, considering what his department has overseen and done so far.

                    YES they could do much more, but hey..that is life, it is still more than most admins!

                    btw, this is general, not directed at you specifically

                    Barack Obama: "These guys want to be paid like rock stars when all they're doing is lip-synching capitalism." may21, 2010

                    by vc2 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 05:15:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  interesting... after re-reading my post (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueocean, Imhotepsings, JL

          I could have simply said
          we have a real consumer advocate with her...

          that's what I meant.

          "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

          by ridemybike on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This is by far the best part of Frank's interview (18+ / 0-)

    Frank said that he was "delighted" by the administration's choice. "I want to give credit to Tim Geithner for working this out. There's absolutely no chance that she will be anything less than fully independent. She wouldn't have taken the job," he said.

    Bwah! So many posters here were so sure that Geithner was responsible for Obama marginalizing Warren. I imagine these posters will either ignore this interview or pretend they never complained about this appointment.

  •  Why do so many people here distrust the president (16+ / 0-)

    ????  Why do so many people jump to conclusions, call the president a backstabber and a coward before getting all of the facts?

  •  I think Elizabeth Warren would absolutely (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Big Tex, Lying eyes, bigchin, padeius

    take a position that was merely advisory.

    To say that she wouldn't is to paint her as arrogant and vainglorious, a petulant child who would say she'd rather have nothing if she couldn't get her way.

    It remains to be seen how much lattitude she's going to have, but arguing that she's so self-centered that she would refuse to "Merely" be an advisor to the leader of the free world?

    That's a staggering insult.

    If you've got a watchlist, I want to be on it ~ Billy Bragg

    by JesseCW on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:50:42 PM PDT

    •  fucking funny (5+ / 0-)

      or...

      it would be vainglorious to assign motives that fit your objectives.

      but alas, being as blinded as you are by doubt and cynicism - no doubt caused by everyone else - you of course malign Warren while pretending to defend her honor.

      Professor Warren is the ultimate champion for the people, she would never allow us to be snowed by a fake toothless agency.

      She would make a huge showy splash of rejecting the craptasic offer and signal to people like you that you've been right all along about this administration.

    •  Jesse, gosh, (0+ / 0-)

      you seem to have got everything exactly backwards!

      Obviously she HAS taken a position that is merely advisory. So your first point has no meaning.

      The rest of your post, it seems to me, is a bunch of shadow-boxing. Nobody is arguing any of that.

      It is a calling ... to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Edward M. Kennedy, True Compass

      by Timaeus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey another strawman argument (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobdevo

    certain to rocket to the top of the rec list.  What a fucking shock.

    •  How? (7+ / 0-)

      And I doubt this'll hit the rec list.

      "A nation that continues to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." *Martin Luther King, Jr.*

      by TrahmalG on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:54:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do you think. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobdevo, WisePiper

        Go find out what a strawman argument is, then tell me this doesn't fit the definition.  It's very convenient for you to hide behind 'I'm so magnanimous that I won't name names' but the reason you won't name names is because you can't.  

        Nobody says the things you claim they say.  You just create these nonexistent people in your mind because it's easier to punch the imagined hippy than the actual Progressives with legitimate concerns based on the information available to them.

        And speaking of available information, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the politicians are spinning this whole matter?  It's amazing how willing people are to take things at face value when they like the letter in the parenthesis.

        Now I don't want you to worry.  You aren't in this alone.  Many of the autorec'ers who T&R'd you will be here in a couple secs to flame me.  I think I'll sleep through this round of it.

        •  Hold that thought, (5+ / 0-)

          I can go grab these comments of people calling the President a sellout, coward etc, if you really believe they don't exist.

          I just thought calling people out was in bad taste, but if you insist . . .

          "A nation that continues to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." *Martin Luther King, Jr.*

          by TrahmalG on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:05:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I forge he's called weak too, (10+ / 0-)
          * [new] Obama treated this like he was planing D-Day (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:importer, Sandy on Signal, crankyinNYC, elwior, blue aardvark, laker
          One of his big failings. I'm all for being deliberative and wanting to make sure to properly vet people, etc. But, dragging this out for months was idiotic in the extreme.

          Why couldn't they have done this weeks or even months ago?

          by Hesiod on Tue Sep 14, 2010 at 09:48:00 AM PDT

          [ Reply to This ]

          Oh c'mon.. this makes Obama look weak.. (9+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:Jim J, hester, blogswarm, Bensdad, gmb, Timothy J, shaharazade, Badabing, jvantin1
          Make a fucking decision already.  How hard is it?

          Ooooh.. I'm so scared to make a decision before the elections!

          For fucks sake..

          "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

          by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:28:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent | Reply to This ]

          he should have appointed her a month ago (11+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:hester, conchita, Bensdad, gmb, joanneleon, HoundDog, blueoasis, Timothy J, pgm 01, Badabing, m00finsan
          While current tradition would have allowed her to serve properly for 15 months, the actual constitution would have allowed 27 months. I would have taken either one.

          And I would have welcomed a debate on process, I would have loved to see Obama act with urgency to protect consumers while the senate was on a month long vacation. And I would have way rather had that debate in August then Obama look so weak by doing this half ass after Labor Day.

          Twitter: @BobBrigham

          by blogswarm on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 06:51:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent | Reply to This ]

          Obama chose worst of all worlds (11+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:conchita, Bensdad, gmb, bmor, joanneleon, Timothy J, pgm 01, Badabing, jvantin1, obiterdictum, m00finsan
          Obama not only won't get the political benefits from being seen as fighting for consumers, but he looks pathetically weak for the half-assed manner he did this.

          What could have been a huge win is not.

          Twitter: @BobBrigham

          by blogswarm on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 06:46:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent | Reply to This ]

          Obama blew it (13+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:conchita, Bensdad, enough already, Dallasdoc, gmb, RainyDay, Timothy J, merrylib, Badabing, jvantin1, JesseCW, m00finsan, randomfacts
          This was such an easy move, and he half-assed it in a way that will still piss off Wall Street but by letting both Rahm and Geithner hold leashes for Warren, she won't be able to make bold moves to protect consumers.

          Obama had a no-brainer decision and he failed.

          Twitter: @BobBrigham

          by blogswarm on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 06:41:01 PM PDT

          [ Reply to This ]

          He doesn't have any crap left to give (0+ / 0-)
          because he's dumped all of it into his pants worrying about what Republicans might do.  This "special advisor" bullshit with Warren is just another example of that.

          Proud member of the unpaid "professional left" since 8/10/2010 / Viva Canadian healthcare! Death to the Pentagon! Free Mumia!

          by Big Tex on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:31:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

          How is this a victory? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:midwestblue
          The WH lacks the moral courage to appoint her to a "permanent" position.  This is more Obama cowardice.

          by newleaves on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:16:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

          "A nation that continues to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." *Martin Luther King, Jr.*

          by TrahmalG on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:38:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  *forget (0+ / 0-)

            "A nation that continues to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." *Martin Luther King, Jr.*

            by TrahmalG on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:38:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  crickets. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dmh44, malharden, vc2, Imhotepsings, TrahmalG

            "We don't differentiate between 'them' and 'us.' It's just 'us.'" --- President Barack Obama

            by marabout40 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 05:01:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I guess you missed the part about (0+ / 0-)

              me going to bed.  Indeed there were crickets, right outside my bedroom window.  You see, some of don't reach the level of navel gazing that it takes to sit on DK all day and all night lauding those who punch hippies and smacking down any dissent.  Are you paid, or are you a recreational navel gazer?

              But since you are here, see my response, and note that once again, none of the "supporters" or "defenders" can actually find more than a handful of people making comments that even come close to the accusations leveled.

              Just like a couple of days ago with the "punish Dems" bullshit, you people keep laying accusations that you simply can't back up when challenged.

          •  Thank you for illustrating my point (0+ / 0-)

            You couldn't find much in the way of anyone saying he was a coward, so you went with people calling him weak, none of whom actually called him weak.

            •  Did you even read the comments? (0+ / 0-)

              Obama chose worst of all worlds (11+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:conchita, Bensdad, gmb, bmor, joanneleon, Timothy J, pgm 01, Badabing, jvantin1, obiterdictum, m00finsan
              Obama not only won't get the political benefits from being seen as fighting for consumers, but he looks pathetically weak for the half-assed manner he did this.
              What could have been a huge win is not.

              Twitter: @BobBrigham

              by blogswarm on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 06:46:27 PM PDT

              Oh c'mon.. this makes Obama look weak.. (9+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:Jim J, hester, blogswarm, Bensdad, gmb, Timothy J, shaharazade, Badabing, jvantin1
              Make a fucking decision already.  How hard is it?

              Ooooh.. I'm so scared to make a decision before the elections!

              For fucks sake..

              "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

              by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:28:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent | Reply to This ]

              How is this a victory? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:midwestblue
              The WH lacks the moral courage to appoint her to a "permanent" position.  This is more Obama cowardice.
              by newleaves on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:16:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

              None of whom actually called him weak huh? More Obama cowardice? I'm sorry I don't have the luxury of scanning every comment for you because you choose to ignore the negativity. But a quick scan will bring you these comments. It's like you deliberately ignored my post.

              "A nation that continues to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." *Martin Luther King, Jr.*

              by TrahmalG on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 01:21:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  It appears you were right. (0+ / 0-)

        Your shit diary didn't make the rec list, but another shit diary just like it did.

        It's all in the timing Trahmal, and the OFA'ers have it down to a tee....especially with the help of social media coordinating recs so it goes to the top first thing in the morning.

    •  The standard stock reply. Strawman. (11+ / 0-)

      And all the while dkos 'progressives' posts are based on complete strawmen doing nakid dance.

      Get in Gear
      2010 or Bust

      by amk for obama on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:59:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Warren's choice to get to work immeadiately (7+ / 0-)

    rather than go through a months long potentially unsuccessful confirmation process can't really be a suprise -- she's been ready to do this for years, and is all about getting results not taking credit or job titles.  Obviously she sees no reason to waste anymore time.  It's really eye opening to see so many who argued she was the only possible choice now questioning whether she knows what she will be doing in the job.

  •  I'm not fond of this part: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Big Tex, denise b

    "I congratulate the administration on its creativity," said Mr. Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is close to Ms. Warren.

    NYT

    The creative solution is an unfortunate compromise on an important general principle.

    Regulatory agencies need independence. And the law purposefully and specifically sets up CFPB with the highest degree of independence.

    This entangled relationship of an agency and a President, is bad process.

    I know that a preference for strongly independent regulatory agencies is a something of a fading viewpoint. But George Bush certainly showed why lack of regulatory independence is bad. And I just see regulatory agencies as servants of the people, not as servants of a president.

    •  Great comment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Garrett, Big Tex

      This entangled relationship of an agency and a President, is bad process.

      A consumer advocate needs to be very independent.

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. --Bertrand Russell

      by denise b on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:24:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What? (5+ / 0-)

      Her new position is to set up the agency, not to run it. Who will be in charge of the agency is a story not yet written, but it's going to be more difficult for Congress to not confirm her from this vantage point.

      What you say about independence has nothing to do with the current arrangement, but I'll be honest and say that I feel better with this being set up out of the WH than out of Geithners office directly. Once its set up, let's see what happens.

      Leave it to Republicans to set the house on fire and then rant that the fire department is socialist.

      by johnsonwax on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:32:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Garrett, that's a thoughtful comment, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Garrett, Big Tex

      but, forgive me, I don't think it's actually relevant in this political climate.

      A regulator must have POWER.

      There are many sources of that in our political system. In the current climate, the only way to get POWER to this new position is through the president.

      And he has PUNTED.  He made her an "advisor."

      That means: no power.

      It is a calling ... to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Edward M. Kennedy, True Compass

      by Timaeus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:48:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a ridiculous and obnoxious (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Big Tex

    diary, in my opinion, and the poll is grossly insulting.

    I stand on my comments from last night. As TPM headlined today, this is Obama "slicing the baby" and there is no clarity whatsoever about whatever powers Warren may actually have.

    She is a great person and a good soldier and she will do her best.

    But to claim, as this diary does, that this is her genuine plan, is obvious crap, an obvious disingenuous White House effort to save face!

    An advisor is an ADVISOR, not an executive. She is boxed in by Geithner (Mr. Wall Street) on one side and the White House (Mrs. Wall Street) on the other.

    I think Warren will try very hard, and I think she will be cut off at every important turn, just as Obama has been cut off on almost every important turn by the real powers that be.

    It is extremely silly that so many so-called progressives are hailing this feckless compromise as some kind of triumph!

    It is a calling ... to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Edward M. Kennedy, True Compass

    by Timaeus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:36:36 PM PDT

    •  So it doesn't matter that she is (5+ / 0-)

      on the same level as Rahm, as the article states?

      She is an assistant to the President, and will be "overseeing the establishment of the CFPB."

      "A nation that continues to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." *Martin Luther King, Jr.*

      by TrahmalG on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:41:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, that is mere words and window dressing, (0+ / 0-)

        and you know that yourself if you know how the White House works.

        It is a calling ... to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Edward M. Kennedy, True Compass

        by Timaeus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:49:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I won't lie, (5+ / 0-)

          I don't know how the WH works.

          I believe in Warren, I think she will have the power.

          You obviously know stuff I do not, and I'm alright with that.

          "A nation that continues to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." *Martin Luther King, Jr.*

          by TrahmalG on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:52:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I doubt EW will sit still or quiet for a shafting (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          smartdemmg, Imhotepsings, Deep Texan

          I also doubt Obama gave her flowchart access to him - i.e., she can walk right into the oval when she needs to - with the intent of blowing her off.

          •  Sure. Right. (0+ / 0-)

            I hope you get a pony.

            The notion that she will be equivalent to Rahm, the White House Chief of Staff, is just ridiculously naive!

            But the people here with little experience and little knowledge are consistently the most passionate in their arguments and insults. It's always been like this. Everywhere, not just on this little island.

            It is a calling ... to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Edward M. Kennedy, True Compass

            by Timaeus on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 03:36:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Strawman and claim of superior knowledge (0+ / 0-)

              (without knowing anything about my experience).  

              It's a 2-fer of ignorance and condescencion!

              Personally, I think u are just too hopelessly wedded to your cynicism and desrie to lose to understand 1) I said nothing about equivalent power (with someone who might not be there in future anyway), and 2) how belittling of Ms. Warren - who you profess to like - your comments are.

              BTW, do you have any idea how long the fight against Standard Oil took?  Do you think the current Wall Street crooks are any less powerful and the fight will be any easier or quicker?

              Grow up.

  •  GOD FUCKING DAMNIT, PEOPLE! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chrismorgan, padeius, TrahmalG, JL

    Wtf is wrong with you? Is everything here just about meta? Is it just a freaking JOKE, or what?!

    We have less than TWO MONTHS until we have a major general election, where we could very well lose our majorities in both the House and the Senate, but you want to pie fight away?

    Really? REALLY?! That's how you want to play it?

    You want me to get my loud-mouthed voice out to GOTV? FINE! I WILL! IF YOU STOP INSULTING ME AND START HELPING ME!

    Jesus, this is ridiculous! It's utterly ludicrous!

    Enthusiasm gap commences! Yet again! SO PLEASE KNOCK THIS THE FUCK OFF! RIGHT NOW!

    Thank you for your time and attention,

    Shiz.

  •  So, were you politically born yesterday? (0+ / 0-)

    But what happens when the subject itself approves of the way she is getting her position, and also wanted it to be that way.

    Uh huh.  And do you also buy it when an exiting official says "I just want to spend more time with my family..."

    what some people are calling President Obama a sellout and a coward for.

    Ah yes, "some people say".

     title=

    ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

    by Uberbah on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:19:54 PM PDT

  •  The left turns her into a saint, the right would (5+ / 0-)

    do their rabid best to tear her and her family to pieces. Its quite possible that she wants none of that. its quite possible that she wants to have a life.

  •  Yeah! I want her to run for Senate in 2012! NT (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist" --- President Barack Obama, 1-20-2009.

    by tier1express on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:20:43 AM PDT

  •  I can't see her (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Imhotepsings, Deep Texan

    taking crap from anyone.  She doesn't need this job, but we certainly need her.  I'm sure that if she feels like she's not being allowed to do what needs to be done, she will tell them all to pi$$ off, and then tell us why she did.  This is no shrinking violet....

    -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

    by luckylizard on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 01:48:54 AM PDT

  •  I was WAITING for this diary.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vc2, Imhotepsings, TrahmalG, matrix

    Seriously, not a single person (aside from a few) actually asked if Warren WANTED the director job in the first place.

    She did not.

    She WILL, however, as has just been reported this morning (Friday) that she'll be tasked with FINDING a director - she's the one who will pick the director, in other words.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    In addition to being charged with forming the newly-created agency dedicated to protecting consumers from abusive financial products, Elizabeth Warren will lead the administration's effort to find the first director of the nascent unit, the Huffington Post has learned.

    President Barack Obama will name Warren, a famed consumer advocate and passionate defender of the middle class, as one of his top advisers on Friday, creating a role inside the White House for the Harvard Law professor and bailout watchdog to lead the effort in forming the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    Warren, though, will not be named as his nominee for the Senate-confirmed, five-year post to lead the new entity -- at least not yet. She will, however, lead the search to find the right person. Consumer advocates and several dozen members of Congress say she's it.

    "Who knows? Maybe she'll pull a Dick Cheney," said one source familiar with the matter.

    May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.

    by dasheight on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 02:30:44 AM PDT

  •  Your source is Barney Frank? (0+ / 0-)

    Who the fuck gives a shit what Barney Frank says?

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 04:27:39 AM PDT

  •  Now watch the fauxgressives have a hissy fit. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foufou

    They are so predictable with the responses. Can set your watch to'em.

  •  Power to do what? Stop off shoring of jobs (0+ / 0-)

    and create them here?  Tame the derivatives market and rid it of corruption?  Solve the unemployment/underemployment problem?  Hell, President Obama has the power, Congress has the power.  I'm feeling this is all a sideshow and won't amount to a hill of beans even if she was given super powers.

    The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism.

    by BigAlinWashSt on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 05:41:46 AM PDT

  •  Nothing matters until unemployment goes down... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and new financial regulations are in place to prevent another meltdown. People getting pissy one way or another on this are clearly confused about what matters.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 06:37:24 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site