Obama "Critics", Please Reconcile This For Me: DU's Patron Saint Of Virtue And Integrity

Elizabeth Warren.

How does her appointment square with Obama being a corporate whore? Why does Obama's corporate masters allow him to have her in his administration?

Do you believe Warren knows Obama perhaps a little better than you do? Does she know he's a corporate whore but she doesn't care and accepted the job anyway, knowing she was going to work for a corporate whore? What does that say about her if that's the case? Did she accept a job that she knew she would not be able to be effective at? How could she think she'd be effective if her boss is a spineless corporate whore sell out?

How do you reconcile this? Why would Obama's corporate masters allow this?

Elizabeth Warren Recruits Dodd-Frank Enforcers From 50 States

Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard University law professor deputized by President Obama to police consumer finance, is recruiting 50 state prosecutors to help. She may even decide to bankroll their work.

“The state attorneys general are natural partners for the consumer agency,” Warren, 61, said in an interview. “There are regulators in Washington that used to prevent state attorneys general from protecting consumers.”

The attorneys general say they are now invited to the nation’s capital and talk with Warren by telephone almost weekly as she sets up the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. On Nov. 30, Warren traveled to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to plot strategy at the prosecutors’ winter meeting.

Bernard Nash, a law partner at Dickstein Shapiro LLP in Washington, said Warren’s alliance with state prosecutors will strengthen both her hand and theirs. It will also antagonize banks, who opposed the creation of the consumer bureau.

--snip--

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

Please, enlighten me on how this can be reconciled. Or is it just ignored?

And remember, I asked nicely, I said please!

Hugs and kisses,
Beet

We only care about the what's at issue RIGHT this very second.

Because we're a bunch of FRUIT FLIES!

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

I guess the "critics" must think she does these things despite her bosses objection to them. Because we all know that being the corporate whore that he is, Obama would never approve of something like this.

and do good! without his knowing! as he is such a tepid and weak corporate whore homophobe fascist dingleberry!.

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the fact that he appoinetd warren doesn't negate the hcr give away to private healthcorps., or the appointment of the deficit commission, or the willingness to continue to appease the gop on issues like the taxcuts for the top 2%. dadt, gitmo, perma-war, the patriot act.

of course he's going to get some of it right....unfortunately he's gotten way too much of it wrong, and the ones he got wrong were the things he campaigned on.

to quote my old granddaddy....even a blind hog finds an acorn every once in a while.

So he's a corporate whore because you disagree with some of his actions, but the one's that show perhaps he's NOT a corporate whore are irrelevant to your opinion that he is. Got it. It IS cut and dry for you that he's a corporate whore, despite any evidence to the contrary.

it sometimes rains in the desert, that doesn't make it not a desert.

the warren appointment was great....the other stuff i mentioned, not so much.
and so far...imho the not so great outnumbers the great.

This is no small thing:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

But since it blows the corporate whore bullshit out of the water, you ignore it.

but you know the same argument can be flipped back at you...if he's not a corporate whore why the big hcr give away.

yours is like the total black and white, all or nothing, with us or against us argument.


for the record i don't really consider him a corporate whore. he's there to maintain the status quo for all the elites not just corporations, and if he can throw a few bones to the working and middle class then great...so i see him more as a snakeoil salesman. promising one thing and delivering, in the main, something else.

Wow. What must you think of her?

You reconciled nothing, all you've done is pretend you're not cherry picking things to fit your narrative that Obama is a corporate/elitist whore. You're semantic bullshit nothwithstanding, if he's there to maintian status quo, then you are saying he's a tool of the elites/corporations and therefore, essentially, a coroporate whore. Why is he allowed to do this:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

You can't reconcile this type of action with your cherry picked narrative. Not at all, no matter how much you claim you did.

i just saw what he said he would do and fight for as a candidate and weighed that against what he actually did and fought for as the president.

i see what answer you're looking for tho. so in the spirit the holiday season i'll answer like you want me to


HOORAY OBAMA....HOORAY HOORAY

how's that....better?

Better than Warren in fact! You've already judged him a snake oil salesmen. And what a fool Warren must be working for such a man!

we don't have a mandate to buy insurance without a public option, the patriot act wasn't renewed, dadt has been repealed, the wars are over and the killing has stopped, and he didn'y appoint the deficit commission by executive order.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

Oh, I see, only the things you think fit your narrative count. It's all black and white. He's a corporate whore and anything that may suggest things are bit more complicated and not so cut and dry, well, we don't talk about that.

You can't reconcile it and maintain any sense of consistency. What it boils down to is "HE'S A CORPORATE WHORE CUZ I SAY SO! NYAH!".

And he already withdrew all combat forces from Iraq and set a timetable for getting troops out of Afghanistan. He's doing what he SAID he'd do.

replace our standing military with 100,000 private contractors (50,000 were already in country before the draw-down, and 50,000 were sent in to replace the drawn down soldiers).

His plan for Afghanistan is to pull troops out in 2014. Whose to say that he will even be in office to see this happen. A republican could win and extend the timetable - yet again.

1) What exactly is the difference between a "combat" troop and "noncombat" troop?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012367-503544.html
here's my favorite from Thomas Ricks (in 2009, but it illustrates the point): "Newsflash for Obama," he said. "There is no such thing as non-combat troops…I think we are there for a long time."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4801483-503544.html?source=search_story%20&tag=contentMain;contentBody

2) You'll note the 2011 timetable is probably going to be 2014

3) As for DADT, not so much. Of course, if Obama hadn't worked against its repeal, maybe it would be done by now. He's so strongly in favor of repeal that he...wait for it, asked Alcee Hastings to withdraw an amendment zeroing funding for its enforcement.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/30/hastings-dadt-white-house/
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/06/5598513-gates-not-particularly-optimistic-on-dadt-repealf

4) Then we can't forget Gitmo still open (and Bagram expanding...and torture there and in Iraq at least until 2009 according to WikiLeaks documents)

I love this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

5) Love this one...Mr. Change.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090407/2327374427.shtml
http://www.counterpunch.org/davidson10262010.html

Yeah...what a change.

done during the Bush years. He never claimed to be a genie in a bottle.

It is HUGE. Having this woman in charge of enforcing Dodd-Frank makes the bill a hundred times more powerful. It turns financial reform from a tepid success into a wild success.

And yet you and the others continue to ignore it while you chase phantoms. Good luck with that whole "cognitive dissonance" thing. Hope it doesn't make you switch parties.

Balances"

Legislative Branch
Executive Branch
Judicial Branch

Obama can't get anything done legislatively without congress.

The House put out some really good legislation

The Senate fucked everything up, and they continue to do so.

People don't seem to understand that the Republicans in the Senate kill any decent bill by voting against Cloture. People also don't seem to understand that voting against Cloture = the Modern Filibuster

All they have to do to kill a bill is vote against Cloture. That's it, no Jimmy Stewart type movie stuff.

I see a lot of conspiracy theories, speculation, disinformation, and character assassination on DU these days, i've even seen DU'ers post things from Birther Conspiracy Theorists in the last week, simply because it feeds into some demented narrative frame about Obama.

Personally I always thought DU is supposed to be the rational and fact based site, and we left the crazy stuff to FreeRepublic.

And then there is the "Media Branch" - every news outlet but MSNBC night-time pushes the Republican talking points without any critical examination. Democrats are presented through the filter of the Republican talking points. Only Maddow and Olbermann actuallly report on Republican hypocracy, misrepresentation, etc

There are lots of things I wish Obama and the Dems would have done better. He pisses me off sometimes, I really want him to be more forceful on getting the message out about what a disaster the Bush taxcuts for the rich are. People ought to know about it, and they ought to know about the folly of electing more republicans to "fix" the economy. None the less the reality is that the Senate Republicans will not allow any tax bill to come to a vote unless it includes tax cuts for the top 2%. It makes me sick to my stomach, but given how our government is structured (checks and balances) I don't see any way around it. Especially since 2010 voters voted for more Republicans.


(P.S. The deficit commission is dead. Simpson did not get his 14 votes.)

couldn't have said it better! It sounds like some of these "critics" think Obama can rule by fiat! I can understand disappointment, based on the high level of expectations, but there has been and continues to be unyielding opposition to almost everything he's tried to accomplish. Criticize him as much as you want .... but some of this stuff is just over the top. Tell me who could get ELECTED and do any better!

Jail all political dissidents, bring the media under state control, become a mouthy, ignorant POS of a leader who allies himself with other mouthy, ignorant POSes like Ahmadinejad...you know.

4 supreme court justices
republican house and senate leadership
the complete GW Bush administration
Ban Fox News from broadcasting

And I'm pretty sure I'm not your target audience. But the usual charge was that Warren didn't get the permanent position because it would then hamper her ability to effect any permanent influence on the new department. And much of that prognostication was based upon Geithner's and Dodd's influence, not Obama.

If Obama is such a corporate whore?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

No, of course you're not my target audience. Not you. Never. You're a paragon of fairness and objectivity.

I'm not one of those who tended to make the claims to which I think you are alluding. I tend to understand what they are saying, even if I don't particularly agree.

She is "allowed" to have her position, supposedly, for the same reasons that many political decisions are made. She is represented by your target audience as effectively a "token" or "tossing a bone to the left". Doesn't get the real job, but is there to put up some appearances, all the while letting Dodd and Geitner ultimately get what they want.

Personally, I strongly suspect that the reality is that Warren was only so interested in the job. There is more cooperation than manipulation going on here. There were forces inside the administration, and congress, that didn't particularly want her. There were forces that did. And then there was Warren who probably thought much of the fuss was much ado about nothing. In the end, this was the arrangement that most satisfied everyone. The forces against her get to live to fight another day. Her supporters got her a "shot". And Obama got to avoid alot of "Drama".

What does that say about her integrity and WHY is she allowed to do this:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

You can't reconcile it and maintain any sense of consistency.

No, I wouldn't suspect she would accept it on such a position. I would believe that Obama would draw the process to close in part based upon that desire. There are alot of players in this game and they all have influence. The basic critcism is based not upon a particular balance of the players, but upon the predicted outcome of the result. Just as each player saw the result a tad difference, the critics will predict various outcomes from the result. It isn't even arguable that the position she has isn't as influential as what could have been. It also is understood that it is better than if she wasn't there at all.

And you admit matters are somewhat more complicated. Well, that's progress!

just sayin.

Great link btw.

Thanks for playing!

my post is only an observation on the tone of your responses. I have nothing I feel I need to reconcile and I didn't really feel like playing YOUR game.

great link BTW!! Have a wonderful day!

Got it. Thanks! Kisses!

great link BTW! thanks for posting

It got almost no attention when it was posted.

It seems people just want to ignore news that doesn't fit their little "corporate whore" fantasies.

...was positioned within the Fed, and Warren is under the supervision of both the prez and Geithner.

She was appointed to oversee TARP by Harry Reid - and Obama agreed to keep her on as interim director of CFPB after strong lobbying by voters, especially activists on the left.

Why is the evil Geithner allowing her to do this?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html


You can't reconcile this and maintain any sense of consistency.

...without a big backlash from the base - he "cut the difference" by making her answer to Geithner.

Where the hell have you been?!

What does that say about Warren that she would take such a job working for corporate whores? And now Obama cares about backlash from his "base? And yet somehow Warren is still allowed to do this:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

Yeah. That makes so much sense! Obama IS playing 24th dimensional chess and Warren must be sell out who works for corporate whores who don't want her!

From yesterday:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/elizabeth-warren-consumer_2_n_791066.html

Now he cares? Why do his corporate masters and the evil Geithner allow Warren to do this:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

Is Warren allowing herself to be used as a tool to placate the base? My, what must your opinion of her be if you think she would allow herself to be used like that?

Still, the situation is not great. Warren is doing what she can to get this thing started because SHE BELIEVES IN IT.

Warren is doing what she can? How? How is she allowed to do anything like this? How does the evil Tim Geithner allow it?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

:popcorn:

Someone did upthread and you just kept moving the goalposts.

Which is why you're not even attempting to.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And ignore any evidence to the contrary!

.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

Why would such corporate whores like Obama and Geithner allow their employee to do that?

And are you suggesting that Warren allowed herself to be Geitner's lackey? My, what must you think of her that she would accept such a position?

She was doing a great job of explaining how greedy bankers and inept regulators screwed the country. I haven't seen her on TV much lately. Maybe that's why they brought her into the administration. :shrug:

Wow. That's amazing. So she was on TV bad mouthing greedy bankers, and somehow, Obama was allowed by those same greedy bankers who control his puppet strings to hire her! That's incredible! It must be magic powers or something!

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/warren-recruits-dodd-frank-enforcers-from-50-states.html

How is that possible?

It's just a fluff piece.

"Warren Recruits Dodd-Frank Enforcers From 50 States"

So, you can't reconcile can you? Got it.

not doing a very good job I guess?

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/131629-warren-spells-out-ambitious-plan-for-consumer-financial-protection-bureau

That she would allow herself to be hired so she could be silenced! I would think a woman of such high minded integrity like Warren would quit such a job when she realized it was sham! And that she could be fooled into taking it in the first place! Oh my...

I'm talking about The Daily Show and The View. She was making regular appearances on popular shows and I was hoping the administration would use her as a spokesperson because she's great at it. Instead the opposite has happened. I never see her anymore.

The interview in question was much more widely available than just "The Hill".

I'm sorry it did not show up on your TV, but seeing how this is all a massive conspiracy, I think I get your point.

I said it was a massive conspiracy. :eyes:

which appears to be really confusing a lot of DUers

Thanks! I didn't realize Reid had the power to make hiring decisions for the Executive Branch. Amazing! Maybe it's part of Elizabeth Warren's magic powers?

Of all the ridiculous spin on this site these days, this is up there as one of the most pathetic and ridiculous. :rofl:

I'd like to know how Reid has the power to hire people under the Executive branch. Put up!

But thanks for playing, you ignorant bastard.

People will throw Elizabeth Warren under the bus to make President Obama look bad. Only they look bad instead. How can they reconcile making a mockery of her work, her job, and her saying this is what she wants..to get it started, to make sure it's right.

K&R but it's stuck on unrec. You nailed it. Good job!

underfunding the new bureau.

Or Obama's fault?

pondering what she might do. If there is inadequate funding, Warren will be ineffectual. Then the rethugs can complain and whine about expanding government.

Have you persuaded anyone?

Can you reconcile or would you rather attack me? Let me guess...

Your OP and ensuing comments are snide, nasty, and unproductive. If you're trying to piss people off, you're succeeding. But you aren't accomplishing anything. No one is going to "reconcile" your question because it's a strawman and false dichotomy.

You could have done a straightforward OP explaining that the President's appointment of Warren undercuts the accusation that he's a corporate tool. But no, you instead put up this snotty missive intended to goad people. Congratulations, it worked.

Attempt at misdirection noted and dismissed! Anything relevant to add? No? Thought so.

You are engaging in pointless rhetorical masturbation.

Bye.

Buh bye! Next! :rofl:

:rofl:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

he must have hired Warren because she "has something on him"

You may be on to something. Because nothing says "integrity" like a little bit of blackmail.

and her feelings of love for Obama trump her feelings of justice for main street. I realize this is purely speculation on my part, but I hope to see it in print by Sunday

:rofl:

It must be a conspiracy!

:crazy:

of things that they have not been able to reconcile here at DU when it comes to the President.

Anyone?

Don't worry, the day will come when she's attacked as well.

is right twice a day. How about these items:

1) Hiring Tim Geithner (chair of NY Fed during the financial meltdown);
2) Hiring Larry Summers "hedge fund chairman);
3) Hiring Robert Rubin (head of Citigroup and proponent of repeal of Glass-Steagall);
4) More for military industrial complex (but a freeze for federal workers);
5) Rehiring contractors (Xe, etc.);
6) Handing corporations 30million new customers (rather than even trying for a public option or medicare for all); and
7) Forget about all the Bush-like national security/defense issues where Obama is reading from the Cheney/Bush play book.

Well...when it says such a rule operative. If you give it the opposite hypothetical then the rules of the logic become fluid.

Somebody can present you the cleanest home you have ever seen but that doesn't mean they aren't generally pretty fucking sloppy.

There is a continum with about anything. I don't think of McConnell and DeMint as IDENTICAL and fully interchangeable. Nor do I Obama and Snowe (though sometimes that can be pretty close).

Truth is in order maintain any illusion there must be some concessions. Warren was too much of a line in the sand for too many folks and is not an easy target for charcter attacks.

After the way wealthy "stakeholders" are getting over, Warren is a pressure valve appointment. What could be said in defense of not nominating her to a post supposedly custom made for her?

And you can't explain it or reconcile with the work Warren is doing and you can't admit the situation is not so simplistic and therefore "corporate tool" cannot explain Obama's actions.

You can't do it.

Even if I accept your "broken clock" theory, what does it say about Warren's integrity? Why would Obama's corporate masters allow her there?

So I gess Warren is just going through the motions by recruiting AG's in every state?

If he's not a corporate whore, explain hiring Geithner, Summers and Rubin. These three are the very ones at the heart of the mess. What about more money for defense contractors and the military industrial complex, while freezing workers' pay? Yes, Warren is good. Great. But the triumvirate above (and we can't forget appointing Bernanke again), and the no strings attached, phony "stress tests" Geithner came up with for bailed out banks. Then there's the foreclosure crisis of forged, missing and flat out fraudulent documents, not even a call for a moratorium. Yes, I know he can't "grant" a moratorium, but his silence is his imprimatur on the banks' fraudulent ways.

What about Elizabeth Warrens appointment needs to be reconciled? Obama has done quite a few good things and this is undeniably one of those things. Is this about all the criticism Obama is getting for "other" things he has done that aren't so good? Are you trying to make the argument that because of the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the appointment of Elizabeth Warren to head it, that Obama can do no wrong, or that somehow this makes up for all the other horrible decisions he has made?

I literally dont understand what you are trying to prove. I dont think anyone is arguing that Obama has done NOTHING good at all, I think everyone is simply upset about the countless other mistakes he has made.

You do need to reconcile it if you think he's been bought. Either he's been bought and Warren is a fool or ALSO compromised or the situation is not so cut and dry and "corporate tool" is not a good explanation for Obama's actions.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it is the RESULTS WE GET - lukewarm, watered-down BULLSHIT

n/t

you're really getting desperate

If this makes you feel better to shout down those who've used the most binary invective against Obama, then knock yourself out. The basic strawman approach to this thread is more akin to rallying the schoolyard against "them".

He's a corporatist. He either feels that private control and unfettered free-marketeering is unavoidable, necessary or virtuous. Whichever it is doesn't much matter to me anymore; the problem is that the system must not be rattled too much.

Presumably, the consumer protection measures come from the heart, and are meant to buffer the people from some of the excesses of cynical shylocks, but many of us who are fervent critics have cited a few admirable traits and presumed some sort of decency at his core. Go bark at the binary thinkers who can neither see nor brook any nuance in life. That's NOT the tenor of this thread, though; this baldly insinuates that those who tag him with the epithet "corporatist" have been conclusively disproved by this act. I disagree. It shows that he's not a complete Quisling to the marrow, and it even shows some genuine concern, but it's not monumental in light of all the rest of the soft-soaping.

Are we seeing any usury limits? Did I miss something?

Consider yourself victorious against the binary snots who slag him as a complete, 100 per cent corporate whore, but I don't see a whole hell of a lot of them around here. I see a LOT of people who think that his level of accommodation is WAY too high, and the fact that he does something that's a limitation on private enterprise and beneficial to the people doesn't cancel out all of his enabling.

The financial reforms are a joke. The Health Care bill is a mess. There's more, but I'm tired.

To further your strawman analogy here, this is simply requiring corporations to use lubrication at times. We shall see what he's made of as things progress with the power-mad second-raters at the table in the House shortly; they tend to overplay their hand in times like these.

So Warrent agreed to work for a "corporatist"? Really? What does that say about her?

You can't reconcile that without suggesting Warren TOO is compromised.

I have no problem at all with a working assumption that she may have her own disagreements with the President and still chooses to work for him. Many of us live in the grey area world where we do what we can within certain circumstances.

Somehow you've convinced yourself that I can't accept her being less than perfect. What's really silly is that you think I consider people tainted who work for those with whom they have philosophical differences. It's yet another strawman: that she is universally held as a paragon here, and that her sublime perfection "proves" the saintliness of our President. People aren't perfect; I can live with them being pragmatic.

1) Imply that everyone who is unhappy with Obama thinks he is some sort of seekrit Republican fascist monster.
2) Point out seekrit fascists wouldn't appoint someone like Warren.
3) Imply that anyone incapable of solving impossible, unrealistic conflict cedes the argument
4) Indicate that the above proves that disappointment in President indicates that opponents are kooks or something.
5) Implication that "kooks" should be discounted out of hand.
5) ?????
6) PROFIT

Who said anything about fascism? :rofl:

So are you saying there are none here that believe Obama is a corporate tool/sell out? You know damn well there are.

You can't reconcile that position with Warren's work. You either have to admit, it's not so simple and he's not a corporate sell out OR Warren is some dolt who would work with a corporate sell out OR she's compromised.

Sucks for you, but there it is!

:eyes: (lol)

Sure some believe that, but the vast majority of us who are tired of the President's inaction think in such black and white terms.

If one does not divide the world up into "virtuous community" and "evil capitalists", then there is nothing to reconcile.

Ergo, no one will reply because your question either doesn't apply to them, or they really do think that he's a "100% corporate sellout" and won't post, though if I were one of them, I'd just suggest she's been given a position with little power for window dressing, but then I'm not one of those folks.

Which means there may be other explanation than "he's a corporate whore!", which makes no sense given the stuff he's accomplished.

If you'd like to pretend that, go ahead. :rofl:

doesn't exist. :/

See him called a "corporatist" in just about every other post though.

Nice strawman attempt though, but I never said "RW idealogue" though, did I?

It seemed to be implied. Else you didn't prove your point in a manner worthy of a rolling smiley.

To and Warren, whos integrity is above reproach, would never work for a corporate whore/tool/whatever.

But there she is working away and doing things like rounding up AG's to enforce Dodd-Frank. How is this possible?

Stop trying to change the subject, I won't bite.

How does a corporate tool get away with hiring Warren, who is rounding up AG's to fuck with corporations? Either he is NOT a corporate shill OR Warren is an idiot working for a corporate shill. You can't have it both ways.

Not saying the President is one, but if he were it would be smart politics. And the position does have some power, if not nearly enough to damage the bad guys in the wold of finance. Dodd-Frank isn't going to fix the fundamental problems in the system, but from her viewpoint, you have do what you can with what you have because it will help some.

There are plenty of people here making that idiotic claim. If you're not good for you. I'm pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in that position. He would never appoint her OR be allowed to by his corporate masters. And what does it say about Warren that she would take the job in such a situation?

You can't have it both ways. Either Warren knows Obama and knows she can be effective at her job (which is what I suspect) OR she's an idiot who took a token position with no power and will not be effective at it.

My whole point is the situation is more complex than "Obama is a corporate whore/tool/whatever!" as is made obvious by someone like Warren being in his admin.

and saying it's black and white. It isn't a simplified game theory situation where team a will always try to squash team b.

A hypothetical bad guy in the Oval Office could appoint Warren as long as he could convince her that she could be a net positive force while preventing her from doing anything to truly upset the system. It would gain a great deal of political good will for the appointer.

If you want to prove those people wrong, it will take a stronger argument.

Just being a devil's advocate.

:rofl:

Yeah, I get it. So Warren's a dupe and the people who argue he's a corporate whore know him better than his friend Warren, who accepted the position from a corporate whore who fooled her into believing him!

Sure, that's believable! Some idiots on the internet know Obama better than Warren. :eyes:

because she will be ineffective, by design. They would never allow a real difference maker to get any real power. She will have to go along with them, or she'll be gone. She knows this. She's already reaching out to the bankers. That's like Obama reaching out to Republicans -- they'll cut her hands off. She has power to tinker around the edges, for example insisting that mortgage documents and credit card "agreements" be in plain English, even though they'll be 30 pages long. If she were to propose some real protection, like limiting the interest rate charged on credit cards, she would be fired the next day.

Obama picked her because he had sized her up and knew she was no danger to his paymasters.

n/t

if i dont agree with you i think obama is a corporate whore
is that correct?

I can find things bush did you liked, can you reconcile that?

n/t

:rofl:

*Smooches*

Why would she work for a corporate whore?

people. If asked to serve in a position of high authority, to help Americans, why would she refuse? how does that speaks to Obama's integrity.

Why are you conflating two arguments?

It's your inconsistency, not mine. Why would Warren, who's integrity is beyond reproach, work for a man who sold out to corporations? How could she think she could do her job properly? Why would Obama's corporate bosses allow him to hire her?

I tend to not see it this way. I think Obama has many solid good qualities. I also see that his legislation is not as good as it could be. He relents way too early and suggests negotiating away progressive ideas, even before people are at the table. This in turn makes his policies quite beneficial to corporations.

I know to make your point, this has to be a black and white issue, but it really is not.

Also people can work for people they dont necessarily respect or like, because they may feel that they can do the most amount of good in that position. Not saying this is the case with Warren, but it could be a alternative argument to your questions about why warren would work for him. I would work for Bush, if i felt that my work would help people.

And people that see Obama as a corporate sell out have prejudged him that way by cherry picking the things that support that theory and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

A corporate sell out would NEVER hire Warren and a corporate tool would never be allowed to hire her.

lol, riiiiiight.

n/t

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I feel sorry for those that tried to engage the OP.

Thank god ignore still exists.

n/t