and why would you wish her to give up her job and campaign for 3 years.
Makes no damn sense whatsoever.

Who would replace her in her perfect job?
The persons who didn't do the job before her?

Why would you want her to leave.

And she ain't running, so its all a pipe dream anyhow, but if the nominee I would support her, though be very sad.

But again, she is PART OF TEAM OBAMA and he got her the job in the first place and she won mostly on his coatails as he won MASS far bigger than she did, and until the last two weeks, it was neck and neck.

But please tellme who would replace her whilst she is campaigning for 3 years?

(And she would never run against Hillary, and Hillary is running.)

It takes a Clinton to defeat a Bush and not get Dukakissed.

imho.

BTW, I love Elizabeth and am a big fan.
So don't use the strawman on me.
I just want her to lead the senate for 18 years and be the greatest senator since LBJ and Teddy.

She is not on Obama's team. Obama is Administrative and Elizabeth is legislative.

Obama did not get her that job. Her constituents elected her. She is on the Banking Committee because of her expertise in that field.
Obama failed at getting her appointed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau job.

she had a job for a while in between with him(conviently forgotten).

BTW, recess appointment is not permanent.

and as the courts recently ruled, there never has been a time to give a recess appointment that stuck, anyhow.

Why the animosity to the President who provided the opening for her to run, the money to support her run, and the coattails to win?
She indeed IS President Obama.
They are not separate.
They are a package deal, like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

What does her a diservice is saying she should up and leave the job and run for President as that takes 3 years to happen.
As if there is anyone else who can do what she is doing, and if she was president, she couldn't do what she is doing, as it is the Senate that is where this can happen.

Why do people look at President Obama as the enemy?

from a progressive standpoint. LOL!

But let's rewrite history to bash the President.

Because he could not do something? Sure, whatever you say.

She has one very good hearing and all of a sudden Senator Warren walks on water? Let's see how things pan out here...find out if there are prosecutors who go after bankers and if other reforms she's championed get through that committee. I'd be far more impressed with that...showing her ability to work with others.

I guess the concept of separation of powers only matters when your people are not in power. When they are, then if they don't dance the right tune in the right time, they're obviously weak. If they have to negotiate and compromise (I know that's a dirty word for some around here) then they're "emasculated" (or whatever the female equivelent it)...weak, a sell out! To hell with any accomplishments have been made or the attempts in trying to get the best deal possible...it's all or nothing...

He won't go after the war criminals and he won't directly go after the banksters but instead selects someone else to do the job. She is a great choice but IMO he is still the one responsible to see to it that justice is carried out ...which he has failed to do. Let me know when Bush and Cheney get prison time and maybe then I will have a little more confidence in Obama.

I'm not happy nor satisfied with the lack of investigations and prosecutions that led to the economic collapse of '07-'08...and the list of those who have failed to do their jobs are long. I'm disappointed in Holder's fear of going after big fish...and this is where I think Senator Warren can and will have some effect. I hope she become a burr under his saddle to push for more investigation and hopefully prosecutions and convictions.

As far as war crimes...I've been loooooooong on the record that this matter is an international one...as the U.S. didn't act alone and that the threat the booooosh regime posed to the world...and the precedences they set deserve to be investigated and tried at the Hague. One President or administration truly can't investigate another...the political fallout is intense and opens the door for abuses should the tables be turned.

It's not one person's job to see justice is carried out...it requires everyone...and it's obvious the will to bring the previous regime to trial for their war crimes isn't there. Shame on all of us...

through prison terms and loss of ill-gotten assets, all of Warren's "work" right now will be nothing but a lot of piss and wind.

And if even she can't get any justice for us, then maybe it's time for private citizens to carry out some "DIY justice" against these banksters.

raise awareness among people across the country of the systemic reforms and punitive actions we need to be demanding loudly, every single day. That potential effect of spurring national outcry and movement for real change can't be underestimated; we need it desperately.....but...

We need more like her to *actually* effect change.

The question is whether she will turn out to be a catalyst for Americans to demand REAL change, or merely a prop used by the establishment to give the impression that they are taking our concerns seriously, while ensuring that she is outvoted every time.

Is that like "2nd Amendment remedies"?

. . .you're gonna have to go out and get it for yourself.

But remember, you're on your own.

Maybe you should live in Yemen.
That's what they have there if that's what you what.

.. is that if we can't get justice thru the Obama Administration's Department of Justice, we should just give up and go screw ourselves, eh?

Nice, very fucking nice.

Kiss authoritarian ass much?

Enjoy whatever survivalist fantasies get you through the night...

You offer absolutely no fucking option except to settle for us getting fucked over.

That might be okay for spineless wimps and sycophants, but some of us are made of better materials and think taking it like whipped dogs has to end. If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.

too, and a House. For God's sake. It's not just matter of having the right President.

If only the right Great Savior would be POTUS! That's all it would take! One with the balls to become dictator so we don't have all that Democratic stuff to worry about! And one that thinks just like me!

And the Obama administration is in the banks' pockets.

Elizabeth Warren isn't.

There are things he can't do as President, that doesn't mean he doesn't have balls.

than Obama's meager political accomplishments.

Note that Obama and Warren agree a lot more than they disagree, and that Warren served in the Obama administration.

This place has gotten so politically correct and anti George Carlin that it's not even close to what it started out as. Now we have a blog nanny jury service. What people alert on and how the juries vote is wacked out.

There are plenty of examples of terminology that were once commonly used that we now find offensive.

In this case, one could easily make the case that the use of the term "balls" is a sexist term. The implied meaning is that one needs to have a penis in order to be tough.

Should we be allowed to refer to women as bitches? Ann Coulter is such a fucking bitch

What about calling somebody gay as an insult? I can't believe Limbaugh said that, he is so fucking gay

Or how about the term "pussy" as an insult? Don't be a pussy, say what you mean

If you agree that the above examples have no place here, then why should the term "balls" when used this context?

great big bonus-getter Jack Lew to be Treasury Sec.

Bush did his best to eliminate regulation. And before that, parts of Glass-Steagall were repealed.

I find it difficult to believe that if the DOJ knew of specific laws broken and specific instances where they were broken that they would just sit there and ignore it.

Of course I am very open to anyone who can site examples and I will stand corrected.

the sexist referral to 'Balls'

Meta thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240223816

If I wanted to make the same point, I would say something to the effect of "I'd trade a dozen Barack Obamas for one Elizabeth Warren." Same point, but the discussion doesn't get sidetracked.

Glad to see this alert dismissed 6-0.

So you sit there with your "Balls" reference at Elizabeth Warren while others appreciate her and the President.

Stupid OP.

It took some cojones just for Obama to not only back health care reform, but to also announce his support of gay marriage last year and to order the assassination of Bin Laden, all of which were politically-risky moves for his re-election.

As Senator-elect she could have made some noise about the fiscal cliff deal. If she did, I did not hear it. She seems to have sat by quietly while permanent tax cuts for the rich were pushed through.

Years and years and years of future income inequality are perhaps more important than prosecuting a few bankers.

It's the "perfectly legal" crap that really sickens and disgusts me. $1.3 trillion in tax cuts being LEGALLY bestowed on the richest 5%.

That should be criminally prosecuted at the fucking ballot box, but Warren still isn't saying any more about it than Rick Warren is. I'd like to see every single one of the jacka$$holes who voted for that get run out of office - including all the useless Democrats.

That's not gonna happen though. Our "democracy" is like a pinball machine which can be slanted and slanted and slanted in favor of the rich, and because they control the mass media too, the machine will never say "TILT" and penalize the major players.

All female, Hillary obviously is the favorite if she runs and the chops Elizabeth Warren is building and has built should be a great ticket.