Elizabeth Warren keeps pressure on Hillary Clinton

[PosterChild]

The Washington Post: Elizabeth Warren keeps pressure on Hillary Clinton and Democrats ahead of 2016

It is hard to think of a precedent for the role she has carved out in the Senate. “I think she’s brought some extraordinary credentials to this job in the public policy area. The only analogy I can think of is a former first lady. That’s an interesting analogy, on a lot of levels.”

Warren’s critics, however, say she often steps over the line between simplifying things and being simplistic..... when she was a Harvard Law School professor heading the TARP oversight board.... the hearings that Warren conducted “often felt more like made-for-YouTube inquisitions than serious inquiries. She was worried about the right things, but she was better at impugning our choices — as well as our integrity and our competence — than identifying any feasible alternatives.”

Weiss’s defenders saw the same traits at work in her opposition to his nomination. It was not a total victory for Warren, given that Weiss will instead be given the title of “counselor” to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, a position that does not require Senate confirmation.

The Washington?Post editorial page called Warren and her allies’ case against Weiss “a grab-bag of symbolism and epithets, not a ration­ale.” New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin called her outrage “misdirected,” “misinformed,” and “just another campaign talking point.”

[Divernan]

1. Your choice of quoted paragraphs is disingenuous & deceptive

This in depth article of some 40 paragraphs has significant insight into the force for change Elizabeth Warren exerts on the Democratic party, not least of which is wanna be candidate Clinton. That is why the article is headlined as it is by the WaPo. But you delve nearly to the bottom to quote 2 critics - an anonymous sore loser supporter of Weiss and MOST AMAZINGLY, you include a nasty quote from that name-calling columnist Sorkin, well known for his friendship with Wall Street. If you want to attack Warren, have the guts & integrity to spell it out in your thread title. To do otherwise destroys your credibility on DU.

http://fair.org/blog/2014/11/26/nyt-columnists-faulty-attack-on-elizabeth-warrens-rage/
New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin has earned a reputation over the years for being friendly with the Wall Street giants he covers. If you read his bizarre rant against Senator Elizabeth Warren, it's not hard to see why.

Sorkin admits that Warren could have had a better argument if she wasn't so blinded by her rage:
"It is true that Mr. Weiss doesn't have a lot of experience in the regulatory arena, and at least part of the role he is nominated for involves carrying out the remaining parts of the Dodd/Frank overhaul law. It is also true that Mr. Weiss, if confirmed, will be the beneficiary of a policy at Lazard that vests his unvested shares–some $20 million in stock and deferred compensation–by taking a government job. That creates its own conflicts. Ms. Warren might be more persuasive if she focused on those issues."

Good point: Warren should have focused on his lack of regulatory experience. Oh wait, she did. Right there in the fourth paragraph: "
That raises the first issue. Weiss has spent most of his career working on international transactions–from 2001 to 2009 he lived and worked in Paris–and now he's being asked to run domestic finance at Treasury. Neither his background nor his professional experience makes him qualified to oversee consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the Treasury."

Free tip for Andrew Ross Sorkin: Don't say someone should have emphasized a point they in fact raised as "the first issue." It makes it seem like you didn't read the article you're critiquing.

In my opinion, these are the paragraphs you should have quoted, if your intent was to convey the meat of the article, as promised by the headline.

No small amount of speculation has centered on whether Warren herself will run for the White House in 2016. She insists that she will not. But her advisers and longtime allies say that she intends to keep the pressure on Clinton, to make sure the former secretary of state pays more than lip service to the issues that matter to Warren.

She is training her heat vision not on the Oval Office, but two doors down the hall on the Cabinet Room. Warren wants to make sure that Wall Street-aligned figures who have shaped the Clinton and Obama brand of economic policy for the past quarter-century, going back to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, are not the only ones at the oval mahogany table.

“The worst case for us is that [Clinton] gives a feisty speech now and then, but surrounds herself with the same old” economic gurus, said one longtime Warren ally, insisting upon anonymity to speak frankly.

[PosterChild]

2. Neither Niether

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Neither disengenious nor deceptive . .. just my opinion as to what is important in the article and what I wanted to point out and emphasize. I'm a Hillary supporter, and I'm leary of populist demagoguery.

You're entitled to yours... I'm entitled to mine....

[Fearless]

8. A thorough assessment!

[RufusTFirefly]

3. Symbolic unrec for shoddy, cheap-shot cut-and-paste job

As for demagoguery (note spelling), what about a candidate who touted her support from "hard-working Americans, white Americans"?

[PosterChild]

4. Thanks for the..

... spell check. Corrected.

The Hillary quote was definitely outside of civil discouse.

My cut and paste was not shoddy . .. notice how I used ellipses to show deletions from the quoted material? A real pro job.

[Divernan]

5. Agreed. No surprise from a Clinton supporter

who blatantly quotes a Wall Street pet columnist to savage Warren.

[PosterChild]

6. In order to get...

...the full context of the Hillary "cut-n-paste" quote, I looked up the source. The full quote:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm

[hollowdweller]

7. To me this author seems to be suggesting Democrats do what they have always done

Democrats have always realized that certain issues are complex and not black and white so in the interest of this fact they have often failed to stand up for what is right.

I would like Elizabeth Warren to keep working to make Wall Street have at least as much negative connotations as conservatives have done with "Liberal"

Dems need to put things in black and white like the GOP does.