Federal Reserve Chair, she appoints Senator Warren?

First of that would not happen. See the above video for what happens when Hillary gets into power. There is virtually a 100% chance that Hillary's financial team would be composed of Wall Street insiders.

Secondly Warren would not and should not accept such an appointment. She would have less ability to improve the lives of average Americans as Fed Chair than as US Senator. There's been some suggestion that she could be made Secretary of The Treasury, but even that might not be good enough.

You don't think setting monetary policy for the United States, and by extension, a great portion of the world, is more important than being one lousy vote out of a hundred in an American legislative body? That's ..... (looking hard for a polite word) ... INTERESTING.

OK--I have a better idea of where you're coming from as a consequence of that comment you made.

The idea that Senator Warren's influence amounts to "one lousy vote out of a hundred in an American legislative body" is to me "..... (looking hard for a polite word) ... INTERESTING."

If Elizabeth Warren's influence amounted to one vote, Antonio Weiss would now be Undersecretary of the Treasury, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency would not exist and dozens of Democratic progressive candidates would not have millions of dollars in their war chests the Elizabeth Warren fundraised for them.

As a United States Senator she has enormous influence over all sorts of issues that impact American's lives every day. This influence, and the influence of all senators, is greatly magnified by the current climate in which any one Senator can hold up legislation. If she was Fed Chair she would not "set... monetary policy." Should would have great influence over monetary policy, but in the end monetary policy is actually set by The Federal Open Market Committee on which the Fed Chair is, in the end "one lousy vote."

"OK--I have a better idea of where you're coming from as a consequence of that comment you made."

p.s if Warren's influence in the Senate continues to grow at the pace it's growing, she'll have quite a bit of say in who the next Fed Chair is.

She may help choose the next Fed chair (she's ranking on banking) but I suspect if she's offered the gig she'll take it. Why? Because it's a BETTER job than being one of a hundred senators--even with all the power one can accrue in that body.

As for "setting monetary policy" how often did The Federal Open Market Committee tell Alan Greenspan to pound sand?

So...whatever!

You saw that bill that she spoke against that Republicans tried to get passed and that she rejected, since it would allow congress to micromanage the fed instead of allowing it to function as an independent agency. She mainly wants to have more transparency of what the fed is doing. But any congress, especially Republican lead congresses, could basically make the fed chair even useless for governing fed policy.

So, though she has a lot of abilities to do this job, she knows that her drive to be a leader in helping policies everywhere build a more progressive government is better served in the Senate than as fed chair.

Now, I think at some point, perhaps in the near future (and hopefully from some of our standpoints), she'll realize the need for someone of her stature to be president, where she could provide more leadership than staying in the Senate, and could provide another great but less experienced progressive to take her place in the Senate, that would not only give a real progressive that leadership of our government as president, but grow our progressive experience and numbers overall in government.

Now she might have personal reasons for not running for president, but I think it's just as likely that she's still waiting for the parade to grow large and strong enough before jumping in front to lead it, realizing that if it isn't, it does no one any good for her to try on her own without enough of a movement of people behind her. That is why it is imperative for us to grow this movement that visualizes her in charge. Even if at some point, she shows that she's not wanting to be in charge of it, the movement will be big enough for someone else who does want it to take charge of it, if not her.

I think Treasury Secretary or Fed Chair is a fifty/fifty shot. That's her wheelhouse.

I wish we had more senators of her sort. and a whole bunch of congresspeople.

I'm not sure what's with democrats this time around, acting like we only have two point five candidates.

only .5 of a possible candidate.

I'm still waiting for viable candidates to announce.

Any viable candidate.

... they generate within our society.

I do think that we need to show her the support structure needed to help her win. No matter how much courage she has to fight odds, etc., she's a smart woman that knows if she tries to do this by herself, or with little organization or allies to fend off the huge money machine that will go after her far more than they would any other presidential contender, that those efforts she would engage in would not help us or her later in the Senate, if she weren't able to win.

It's as Thom Hartmann puts it that we need to generate a large enough parade of people that shows it will dominate the scene around everyone, that leaders like Elizabeth Warren will jump in front of it to lead it, especially if that parade wants someone like Warren so much, which I do think we're capable of doing. I think we do ultimately have numbers. But it's the how of organizing those numbers and informing all of us, when the corporate media infrastructure and everything else is working against us to keep us uneducated, too poor and busy to do much besides survive, to help build that organization. Our strained middle class situation is by design that way, to keep us from mobilizing. We need to find creative ways to get people to work together and minimize the amount of time and effort they have to expend to be part of a large movement. If she sees that happening, I do believe she will jump in front of that to help lead it and add the voices that we need to make our movement more known.

I like Bernie Sanders potentially running a lot too, but I do also believe that Warren has a far better chance to win based on many variables, even if Bernie would be just as capable and qualified to run as she. I think the most he can do is help drive the conversation the right direction so that progressive issues are talked about and dealt with in the coming campaign.

As for the suggestion here that Clinton appoint her as federal reserve chairman as a testament for Clinton being who we need or the like, I think Warren would be wasted being in that position, even if I think she might do a fine job of it. I think there are so many other areas of concern than what the fed does that we need her leadership affecting. And we need someone like her leading and not someone like Clinton, who would put in place the TPP, expand H-1B Visas, and other things that won't help solve many of the fundamental problems our economy and political system faces today.

work to get progressive candidates elected on the local, state and congressional level. That would be a much more realistic and acheivable goal.

And she knows it. The first female POTUS will have foreign policy chops.

It is not about Warren's fitness to be POTUS. It is about the fact that she's not running and that it would be better if people focused their efforts on electing progressives to congress, their state houses, etc. Too many think that the presidency is the do all and end all. Back in 2008 after the election, the left went home thinking the job was done while the tea party was mobilizing and we all know how that worked out.