and do what the President wants. Don't know if she will run, doubt it, actually, but I suspect Warren is intelligent enough to pay attention to all the stuff exploding around us, and would have advisers just like any other president would have.
This sort of sounds like that "who do you want to answer the phone at 3 am" thingy, really.

... and we empower more real progressives out there with some decent experience that will help us later when we need more of them to help in other capacities. The problem is that we get one decent progressive in a significant office like the Senate, the House or some other position, and we tell them to just "stay there", instead of using their experience and skills in greater capacity that the country sorely needs at this point. And I'd like to believe that the state of Massachusetts could elect another decent progressive to replace her in the tradition they elected here and Ted Kennedy earlier. It wasn't that long ago that Senator Merkley got elected here in Oregon as our senator and he's been doing great things that might have some say "stay in office" if and when he wins his senate seat back in a few weeks (which I believe he will). But I as an Oregon resident would be proud if he were selected as someone like Warren's running mate in 2016 and would work extra hard that we could get another good progressive elected to replace him here then were that to happen.

If you are saying that there aren't any good progressive individuals that she could nominate for her cabinet for her to delegate her work to effectively, then that really supports my point that we really need more people to get in positions where they can appoint more progressives to cabinets and agencies, etc. to build up that experience we need, and help make someone like Warren a strong president that doesn't have to micromanage everyone under them to get effective progressive reforms enacted.

Now is the time to push for more progressive representation in our government, not to just "stay" where we are.

I was being a bit sarcastic, as the OP seems to imply that Warren just isn't up to handling the job because it is just so darn complicated.

And, bearing in mind she says she is not going to run, if someone like Warren did run, and won, it would be fucking fantastic to see some progressives appointed to positions in the administration, instead of the cronies and Third Wayers and Republicans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025657641#post23

First let me remind you that the blue state of MA let Teddy Kennedy's beloved seat go to Scott Brown-R. Warren's win was far from easy in a blue state, huge money was funneled in and it was the fight of your life here.

MA was fatigued over so many special elections. We replaced a seat for Ted Kennedy and Ed Markey And John Kerry. Then there was this.



Boston bombings overshadow Massachusetts Senate election





We are fighting to get another Dem Governor here and it is a very tight race. So please don't put it on us to win every time.

What I am saying is that she can wreck more havoc where she is, in the SENATE. She can outrage people, she can personally call out whoever she wishes at any time, she can not do that as President. Why would you wish her to leave her seat? Think about it, the GOP and WALL STREET want her out of there. Why would we!?

How could she remain focused solely on the middle class and banks with all the shit exploding around us daily? A President has to focus on the entire US and the World.

I think Warren is perfectly capable of appointing people to carry out her ideas while she focuses on the rest of the World, is all I'm saying.

I understand that she is valuable in the Senate. I also understand that the GOP is pretty much stopping everything they can, in Congress, so maybe a President can do more, who knows? Anyway, it does make me ponder how we are told Warren is just too valuable in Congress, but Obama evidently wasn't missed.

For someone who we are assured, on an hourly basis, it seems like, is certainly not running - the effort is being made to assert that she is too old, the RW smears about being part Indian are being repeated and linked to!, she is too valuable where she is, she may not be able to concentrate on the big picture, she signed a letter, every time she agrees with Hillary or Obama about is noted (by Hillary supporters) - why all the fuss?

I believe Warren supporters are not a personality driven bunch of folks - they love her ideas and want someone LIKE HER to vote for. So - not that you are doing this - demonizing or dismissing her really misses the point, and will not make Hillary any more palatable than she is right now.

And that you have fatigue in replacing senators as well.

We in blue state of Oregon are just in the last few days potentially facing a potential loss of Kitzhaber to a Republican like Dennis Richardson for governor here who was the champion for arming teachers in schools after Newtown and Clackamas mall shooting in the same week here. The problem is the last minute mess that his fiance created with her news of a past "marriage" the last few days just before mail ballots go out the next few days and voter registration shuts down tomorrow.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/10/cylvia_hayes_john_kitzhaber_wo.html

I think the big problem for blue states is when there's a last minute change of events that doesn't allow us time to plan in advance that well in elections (like the death of Ted Kennedy, and this news story here).

I'm also working my damndest to make sure that a 1% sponsored "top two" primary isn't passed here this election (Measure 90) that would really empower more a smaller white and older part of the Oregon populace in primary season to make the key election decisions instead of in November, that will also hurt us too in that regard.

But that being said, I'd still support someone like Merkley being drafted as a VP selection for someone like Warren if she were to win the nomination, as I believe that we can and it is our job to come up with another great progressive in this state to replace him as our senator. Unless we have that mission, it will be really hard for progressive movements to grow in the way they really need to to change our government away from the path to oligarchy it is on now. We need to have courage and find ways around the media's "control" of the messaging we have now to win these elections and make it clear to the 1% that they can no longer just "control" our government through their "money as speech" strategies. It takes courage and we may suffer some setbacks, but in the long run, just like in Massachusetts where they ultimately threw out Scott Brown in the general election, we will win.

at the same time ?

You shouldn't compare her to the current President just because he can't.

Welcome to DU and enjoy your stay!

Pretty subtle, eh?

Sid

Wow, you joined DEMOCRATIC Underground what 5 days ago and you are primed to bash our Democratic President. Got it, Obama s**ks.

"She would not be able to remain focused on these issues as President"

Bye~

I think she can get more accomplished in that body. But I wouldn't mind seeing her run. She would be a good voice for a lot of the issues, concerns and policies I believe in.

Her message is very popular and I do think that she understands the financial sector better than Obama;

She is a new face, which is something the general voter would like to see in 2016;

It did not hurt Obama to leave the Senate after only 2 years;

she was not a "decider" when the question of the first Iraq war came up;

She also seems to choose good advisers for herself.

Whether as president she can in any way control the out of order financial institutions is questionable, but so it is for everyone else.

I can see that you would hate to lose her as a Senator, I would too, but I trust the state of Massachuset to have a lot of other bright and inspiring people to replace her in case of necessity.

Our first woman Senator from MA! She is something I voted for a new face in the Senate!



With out a Congress like Obama she can't do what you wish her to do. As Senator she sure as hell can kick ass!

Read this...so many have faith in our blue state...we too are flawed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025657641#post23

I don't think we should pillory banks and financial institutions, but I believe that we should have had a little more justice than we got. Instead what the Obama administration did was tell the American people that banks and financial institutions don't have to live with their mistakes. If a person defaults on their house they lose their house - if a bank makes a bunch of bad loans, creating financial products, and then create other finanical products based on those, leveraging them all, until the whle thing crumbles like a house of cards, destroying millions of dollars in the process - well they don't have to be held accountable for that kind of mistake.

I'm opposed to pillorying for the sake of pillorying - i'm a capitalist. But I am damn sure in favor of justice. And we didn't get it.

Bryant

I am pissed coming from that Elizabeth Warren article "ignorantly" slamming the President. I thought at the time it sounded unknowledgeable of all the facts. Why would she do that?! Good timing, too.. right before Midterms. congratulations Elizabeth.

"I honestly believe that Senator Warren is a smart person. So I have no idea why she would say something like that. Did she not notice that President Obama implemented other structural changes to financial institutions via Dodd/Frank that most of Wall Street hates? Even naysayers like Paul Krugman have had to acknowledge that it has been more effective than they originally thought.

Did Senator Warren not notice the structural changes to student loans that President Obama got passed back in 2010? Or the fact that he endorsed her bill that includes further reforms?"

From your link, she..

"I'm growing increasingly weary of this notion that in order to be one of the "kewl kids," one must ignorantly criticize President Obama. Senator Warren would get my unqualified support if she would abandon that nonsense."

A comment at the link..

Allan BrauerOctober 12, 2014 at 7:02 PM

"Warren also had to educate Thomas Franks on the history of bankruptcy "reform" and what a bad deal it was for consumers. After he found out it was passed in 2005, he lost interest in it for some reason..."

From today on ABC..

Krugman: Obama a More ‘Consequential’ POTUS Than Clinton

“People who had this idea that Obama was going to bring a transformation of America, I thought were being naïve,” Krugman told Karl this week. “But, by God, we got health reform, and we got a significant financial reform. We are getting the environmental action … it’s not everything you would have wanted, but it’s more than anyone else has done for decades.”

More.. including Vid..
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/10/paul-krugman-obama-a-more-consequential-president-than-clinton/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Thank you, she!

And here we go again Cha.

Thank you for highlighting the important passages. And for the Krugman link...



Krugman: Obama a More ‘Consequential’ POTUS Than Clinton

“People who had this idea that Obama was going to bring a transformation of America, I thought were being naïve,” Krugman told Karl this week. “But, by God, we got health reform, and we got a significant financial reform. We are getting the environmental action … it’s not everything you would have wanted, but it’s more than anyone else has done for decades.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/10/paul-krugman-obama-a-more-consequential-president-than-clinton/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Thanks Cha

Why don’t progressives care about labor unions?

snip//

Thomas Frank’s interview with Elizabeth Warren includes Warren attempting to balance praise for the President with a completely false critique that is a staple of the Professional Disappointed Left.

snip//

When the Obama administration rescued the auto industry and the UAW, Wall Street absolutely insisted that bondholders who had irresponsibly financed the worthless managements of both GM and Chrysler must get 100% back. That did not happen. The shareholders were wiped out. The bondholders suffered, as they should have, massive losses. The Obama Administration used the savings to wipe out the debts of GM and Chrysler and to save the UAW pension/health fund. None of this is secret and the right wing has bitched about it non-stop since the moment it happened. The “left”, however, doesn’t give a damn about a million jobs, the security of GM and Chrysler retirees and the unions. This example is not the only one of Obama’s economic team battling on behalf of working people, but it is the most revealing - about the Progressives and “the left” and what they think is important..

More..
http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/post/99839639421/why-dont-progressives-care-about-labor-unions

From your link!

The Obama Administration used the savings to wipe out the debts of GM and Chrysler and to save the UAW pension/health fund. None of this is secret and the right wing has bitched about it non-stop since the moment it happened. The “left”, however, doesn’t give a damn about a million jobs, the security of GM and Chrysler retirees and the unions. This example is not the only one of Obama’s economic team battling on behalf of working people, but it is the most revealing - about the Progressives and “the left” and what they think is important..



You my dear are marvelous! It's why I luv ya! Bring it on!

[img][/img]

Mahalo, Cha!!!

If she could ever manage to run and actually be elected.

As for her statement here, it's ignorant. Does she at least say what the POTUS should have done? Everyone else seems to think they know.

The banks could not be allowed to fail. That's ridiculous. This hatred of "the banks" is stupid. Like hatred of the police, it's necessary for a society.

Just compare innumerable statements and actions from Senator and then Candidate Obama to President Obama. It was no different for Bush I and II, and Clinton, or would potentially be for a President Romney, Hillary Clinton or Warren.

Political party is immaterial. Actually governing, considering and representing multiple constituencies with various and conflicting interests and desires, and having direct responsibility for numerous real lives, is a hell of a lot different that political sniping and making promises to get elected.

just want to make her powerless.

I mean, could any position have less power than the Presidency?

we have had this conversation before. I have always mentioned focus~ It tires me to do it again.

However lol~ thanks for kicking my thread as some here like to say.

I promise I won't do anything irrational.

I mean that DID come from the #1 Hillary Fan ^TM

you would see a Blog posting that I was quoting...

ask her there if you have questions.

I feel a kindred to Elizabeth cause she was born and lived until she was around 12 years old here in Oklahoma so we do have somethings in common. She, like me, has some Cherokee blood coursing through her veins. When I listen to her talk I get a sense like she isn't that far removed from her Oklahoma roots. My hope is she at some point will run for the Presidency as she could do so much at the top that she can't do now. Oh don't get me wrong I like her where she is but feel she could do much more in the oval office but I'll take her wherever she wants to be.
at any rate I won't pressure her to do anything except keep on doing what she's done in life up to now as she is a great success already and has made some awesome decisions to be where she is today. Being in Teddy's seat is no small feat in itself.

TheObamaDiary.com @TheObamaDiary
Follow
Elizabeth Warren: 'The President was the one who refused to throw Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the bus'

1:52 PM - 12 Oct 2014 70 Retweets 34 favorites

http://theobamadiary.com/2014/10/12/a-tweet-or-two-140/

And I am so damn tired tonight...gotta go soon.

Thanks so much for all you brilliant adds to smartypants post.

This one is perfect, Cha. He damn well supported her work @ CFPB.

Not sure what she was doing in that interview.

However.

A GOP Senate's First Target: Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Protection Agency
For years, House Republicans have been trying to gut her greatest accomplishment.

If the GOP wins the Senate, they'll no doubt use the opportunity to push through a range of measures that are kryptonite to Democratic voters—new abortion restrictions, limits on the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to combat climate change, a relaxation of the rules reining in Wall Street's worst excesses.

But Republicans are particularly keen on handicapping one particular federal watchdog: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the three-year-old agency that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) devised and helped build in the wake of the financial crisis.

The bureau's job is to make sure Americans aren't getting screwed by mortgage lenders, credit card companies, debt collectors, and other financial institutions. It's the first federal agency designed specifically to protect everyday consumers from financial wrongdoing, and Republicans have done everything in their power to hobble the agency—including fighting the confirmation of its director, Richard Cordray. Winning the Senate in November could be their best chance to roll back Warren's greatest accomplishment.

"You just have to watch the House to see what is going to come out of the Senate."

Half of their work is already done. The House has passed a bill that would limit the bureau's power by replacing its director with a five-member panel, and subjecting its budget to the congressional appropriations process—meaning that hostile lawmakers could starve it to death. (Unlike most federal agencies, the bureau is bankrolled by the Federal Reserve, an effort to free it from the whims of partisan politics.) House Republicans have also introduced legislation to let other financial regulators overturn CFPB rules, to eliminate a fund the bureau uses to compensate consumers who've been defrauded by an institution that's gone belly-up, and to restrict the kind of data the bureau may collect from consumers. (Republicans have charged that the CFPB's collection of credit data is a violation of privacy, even though the bureau does not collect any personal details the consumer doesn't volunteer.)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/republican-senate-would-gut-elizabeth-warren-consumer-protection-bureau

I keep asking the question Cha. Why do so many want her out of her Senate seat to run for President!? I believe I know that answer, I sure wish that those that support her run would look at the facts.

We voted for her in MA for what she tried to do in CFPB! Now many want her to leave, not surprising since the GOP and Wall Street want her gone as well.

There is a game at foot and it smells Cha. Is someone trying to make her look bad? Anti Obama? That is an interesting question.

Something stinks in Denmark!

during a time when the country was careening towards a second great depression."

You are insinuating that his lack of "pillorying" (or holding the banks accountable) was for the good of the country. That's incredible. People losing their homes, even today. I have friends being evicted which screws up their credit rating which makes it impossible to find a place to rent. Millions lost their HOMES and we can't do anything about it. And of course what happens when criminals get away with their crimes? They continue to commit the crimes. The banks are not done fleecing us. There are still some Americans that haven't lost their homes. And after the next crisis, and there will be one, will our president tell us that he/she won't hold the banks accountable again for the good of the country?

Think about the logic. His lack of action prevented a depression. Really?

and she's desperate and pathetic as well. when lmsp writes something as brilliant as Franks, maybe she'll be worth listening to. As is, her obvious ploy to discredit Franks and Warren because she perceives them as a threat to Hilary, is sadly transparent.

And yes, it's obvious she doesn't really care for Warren despite her mewling protestations.

She seems to be in permanent campaign mode, but for what, on whose ticket? Her criticisms of Obama seem more directed at Biden than Mrs. Cinton, so let's say she takes Biden out. That still leaves Clinton. Let's say she takes Clinton out. Then she has this long record of critical remarks against Obama-Biden, so she's running as what? GOP lite? The GOP is probably going to run an equally lite candidate like Jebster, and she can't beat Jeb at his own game and still hope to win Dem votes. And that strategy didn't work for Gore.

[img][/img]

Go Wendy Davis

Great toon Major

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014916302#post4

Saw another thread dripping with venom toward Obama, calling supporters names. That's all there was Sunday morning. Some stories are over a year old, well honed hatred. It masquerades as passion, but one wonders when words that mention peace and justice, come from those that have hate in their hearts and are unfair.

The technique is using Warren and Sanders in classic Segretti style, when one is a Democrat and the other caucuses with Democrats. Their statements are taken out of context. But I don't even fault Warren for this interview. It was like the one she was on with Todd on MTP, trying to blame Obama. She dodged and weaved the accusations, just as she mainly did with this one. She has a message to get out.

It is not 'Vote for ME!' or 'Obama the Traitor!', it is what the big money is doing to us all, including blocking the POTUS. The vitriol is at an all time high. The primaries are over. Yet the anti-Dem hate is full blast, the distortions are OTT because this is going to be a bigger election than 2010 was, and it worked then, too.

I feel bad for those who have become influenced by the toxicity is from well coordinated media attacks designed to get people to take the Koch brothers' cause as their own, not in words, but in results. Koch brothers money is effective. But no one will admit they might be wrong. Nothing new.

And yes, the Koch's put in Scott Brown, then ran him against Warren, and now is funding him in another state. And they want EW out of office there in MA. One less Senator to fight what they intend to do, to destroy the legacy she has fought for:

A GOP Senate's First Target - Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Protection Agency

For years, House Republicans have been trying to gut her greatest accomplishment.

By Erika Eichelberger - Sep. 26, 2014

If the GOP wins the Senate, they'll no doubt use the opportunity to push through a range of measures that are kryptonite to Democratic voters—new abortion restrictions, limits on the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to combat climate change, a relaxation of the rules reining in Wall Street's worst excesses...

Yet people blame Obama.

The bureau's job is to make sure Americans aren't getting screwed by mortgage lenders, credit card companies, debt collectors, and other financial institutions. It's the first federal agency designed specifically to protect everyday consumers from financial wrongdoing, and Republicans have done everything in their power to hobble the agency—including fighting the confirmation of its director, Richard Cordray. Winning the Senate in November could be their best chance to roll back Warren's greatest accomplishment...

Half of their work is already done. The House has passed a bill that would limit the bureau's power by replacing its director with a five-member panel, and subjecting its budget to the congressional appropriations process—meaning that hostile lawmakers could starve it to death. (Unlike most federal agencies, the bureau is bankrolled by the Federal Reserve, an effort to free it from the whims of partisan politics.) House Republicans have also introduced legislation to let other financial regulators overturn CFPB rules, to eliminate a fund the bureau uses to compensate consumers who've been defrauded by an institution that's gone belly-up, and to restrict the kind of data the bureau may collect from consumers. (Republicans have charged that the CFPB's collection of credit data is a violation of privacy, even though the bureau does not collect any personal details the consumer doesn't volunteer.)

Yet people hate the Federal Reserve, and want to effect a Ron Paul and Libertarian plan to eliminate it. A lot more on what they'll do to destroy Warren's work if Democrats buy the Segretti technique:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/republican-senate-would-gut-elizabeth-warren-consumer-protection-bureau

This is so glaringly obvious, and affects so many, it's impossible to discuss of the RL online.

I posted what 1SBM said, along with others here:

"Electing more Democrats... accomplishes nothing good." Glenn Greenwald.

That's right--Glenn, who has worked for the Kochs, and apparently does not want people like Elizabeth Warren to be elected, said this....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/15/1262880/-Glenn-Greenwald-advocates-letting-Republicans-destroy-the-country#

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025642630#post5

Your perfect reply:

All part of the plan ...

Posted earlier:

And "Mission Accomplished" ...

could be heard whispered throughout the land. (It seems)

GOP: "Government doesn't work" ... Check!

Libertarians (right and left): "Government is evil" ... Check!

Tea Party: "Government doesn't work and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!

"Liberals/Progressives": "Government is evil and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!

The media has played this narrative on a 7-day, 24-hour loop.

Result: Only 15% of the American people pay close attention to the only mechanism for change.

Nicely played, Oligarchs!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025642630#post14

That piece and the posts objecting to it on KOS, deserve a full read. The post was objected to on the basis of personality and not the political issue and real life effects, which would lead to some honest and intelligent discussion. I posted the poll from the KOS link:

Poll results on question:



http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1708001/vote

29% wanna stand by and watch government, and many of us, burn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025642630#post24

An excellent reply to me:

I voted 'No." But now it's up to 27.6%. WTF.

People are wrongwrongwrong.There will be NO revolution.

They will turn this country into a big version of current tax havens -- plantation life for the rich with an archipelago of little Dubai's -- namely, entertainments, tours, two-leveled transportation, infrastructure, and service/servants quarters. No schools or medical care except for the rich.

How could our own sell us out?!! Goddammit!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025642630#post47

None of us object to saying what we think on what's essential. I read the 'don't vote, will not vote for various causes or to have a revolution, etc.' posts every day.

The fact that we are past the primary season isn't discouraging the don't vote contingent anywhere. There are many reasons given, but it's all about the media atmosphere, which has been cultivated from all sides with millions spent every month.

Our vote is being pooped on while the Teabaggers will be there to vote. At least they believe in voting for themselves, and work daily to deny us a vote. So who's dumber?

Their vote suppression work proves just how very powerful our vote is. For that reason alone, even if one does not care about those who died to get us the vote, I think people should make the effort to vote against suppression and oppression by the purveyors of Jim Crow and feudalism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025646840#post102

A GOP Senate's First Target - Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Protection Agency

All that you posted is highly informative. It paints a pretty clear picture for those that have been paying attention.

The people in this thread that keep saying it was fine when Senator Obama left the Senate so why not Warren. Well gee, I don't remember Obama being targeted by the GOP before and after he became Senator, do you? They have been trying to seek and destroy Warren all along. Why no one sees that is beyond me.

They blocked her nomination:



Republicans did the banking industry’s bidding by fighting tooth and nail against the Warren nomination. Eventually, Obama bypassed Warren and selected Richard Cordray to head up the CFPB.

Republicans thought they had won, but they had no idea how much they lost.

By blocking Warren’s appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Republicans set the wheels in motion for her to run against Scott Brown. Warren handily defeated Brown and won his Senate seat, which means that the woman they didn’t want running the CPFB is now an exponentially more powerful United States senator.

Today, the story of how Republican obstructionism made Elizabeth Warren one of the most powerful women in U.S. politics took another turn as many of the same Republican senators who opposed Warren in 2011 voted to confirm John Kerry’s nomination to be next secretary of state. This means that Elizabeth Warren is now the senior senator from Massachusetts.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/01/29/gop-blocked-elizabeth-warren-director-cfpb-senior-senator-massachusetts.html

....here is something I posted yesterday elsewhere on this site in response to "what is she wrong about":

What she's "wrong about" is all she does is complain and criticize.

WHEN is she going to present solutions to the problems - solutions that can be implemented?

When I was in college and then in my working life, I was told that it's okay for me to find fault with something, but I'd better be prepared to do something to change it.

She's not a college professor any more, she's a UNITED STATES SENATOR. Time to stop lecturing and complaining and start doing something about it.

Other than giving speeches knocking everything around her, I haven't seen much of anything else.

"Consumer financial protection board".

After you pick yourself off the floor, search for the bills she's sponsored.

....as a Senator. She'd better start punching up her resume if she decides to run for President.

as the CFP?

You should consider deleting or modifying your post. "all she does is complain and criticize" The CFPB is pretty major.

Warren beat an incumbent Senator who was polling as the most popular politician in MA. She started down by 20 points, ended almost 10 points up.

She was instrumental in keeping Larry Summers from having another crack at the 99%.

And Warren's only been in office less than three years!