Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
36. You make a good point. She does know what she wants.
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 07:45 AM
Nov 2013

The thing about Elizabeth Warren, and what makes her refreshing, is that she doesn't care how she gets it. She wants economic justice--how she gets that is of little concern to her. If she felt that being President would be the best way to achieve her goals, she just might try.

This essay is particularly relevant:

The proper interpretation of Warren’s prodigious p.r. efforts, then, isn’t that she’s especially taken with the idea of media stardom. It’s that she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.

This is what the banking industry and its Republican allies (as well as internal opponents like Geithner) didn’t fully appreciate when they effectively killed Warren’s hopes of permanently heading the consumer agency in 2011. Anyone who knows Warren will tell you she had no particular ambition to be a senator. She decided that the Senate would suffice as a way to agitate for her issues only when Obama stiffed her for the CFPB job—an enormous disappointment after she spent months lining up support among banks. “It’s poetic justice. At end of the day, if the banking community hadn’t been so apoplectic, everyone could have decided it’s this little tiny agency, who really cares?” says Anita Dunn, Obama’s White House communications director in 2009. “Instead, she ends up as a senior senator from Massachusetts on the banking committee, blocking Larry at the Fed.”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare


Great essay, in case you haven't read it.



-Laelth

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

She knows what she wants. And it's not the Presidency, or Vice Presidency. CaliforniaPeggy Nov 2013 #1
You make a good point. She does know what she wants. Laelth Nov 2013 #36
I missed the part where she said she wouldn't run if drafted. Scuba Nov 2013 #2
Lol! stevenleser Nov 2013 #3
Did you really think she'd say 'yes'? Scuba Nov 2013 #10
It means she isn't running. She didn't use wiggle room terminology stevenleser Nov 2013 #15
You read a lot more into her statement than many. And it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind Scuba Nov 2013 #27
In 2006, Obama was still denying any intention to run in '08. Jackpine Radical Nov 2013 #4
"Denying intent" is not equal to "I am not running" stevenleser Nov 2013 #5
No way can Hillary excite progressives, regardless of who she might pick for VP. Scuba Nov 2013 #12
That's your opinion based on your own feelings only. Nt stevenleser Nov 2013 #16
Yep, I'm the only one here. Yeah, that's it. Scuba Nov 2013 #24
You can't speak for all or even most progressives. Nt stevenleser Nov 2013 #26
And you don't speak for Elizabeth Warren. Scuba Nov 2013 #28
Unlike you, I didn't claim to. She spoke for herself in a video stevenleser Nov 2013 #29
Post removed Post removed Nov 2013 #30
So, you're saying that Warren is as much a political sellout as Obama is, right? brooklynite Nov 2013 #34
I'm wondering what the earliest time to announce is on the record? Whisp Nov 2013 #6
If a candidate says "I'm not running, go do something else" it matters stevenleser Nov 2013 #7
Obama announced VERY early. hedda_foil Nov 2013 #19
thanks steve. pitting ms warren against ms clinton is totally counter productive spanone Nov 2013 #8
Thank you, Senator. longship Nov 2013 #9
so did Barack Obama back in 2006 or 7. nt LaydeeBug Nov 2013 #11
No, he didn't. Nt stevenleser Nov 2013 #14
YES, he did. LaydeeBug Nov 2013 #23
You said 2006-2007. He declared in 2007. Nt stevenleser Nov 2013 #25
No. I said 2006 **OR** 2007, and he said he wasn't in 2006. YOU'RE WELCOME. nt LaydeeBug Nov 2013 #31
EW knows she can probably be more productive where she is. nt Tarheel_Dem Nov 2013 #13
Why does that make some posters so pleased. Union Scribe Nov 2013 #17
She is a great lady. William769 Nov 2013 #18
Exactly. stevenleser Nov 2013 #21
Watch while I yawn. RagAss Nov 2013 #20
Folks, getting mad at me won't make Warren run. It won't change reality. stevenleser Nov 2013 #22
Okay, but I will not move on to Hillary. nt Demo_Chris Nov 2013 #32
Post removed Post removed Nov 2013 #33
Townhall.com, really? NuclearDem Nov 2013 #41
I *am* not running for President MannyGoldstein Nov 2013 #35
Good! Now we can lockdown HRC and move on to the Senate... bluedeathray Nov 2013 #37
I guess then progressives need to find another candidate they can coalesce around in 2016 Douglas Carpenter Nov 2013 #38
If not Warren, then whom? Laelth Nov 2013 #39
Too bad. Hopefully, there will still be a liberal/progressive challenger to Hillary. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2013 #40
still a year away tina tron Nov 2013 #42
While I would vote for her in the primary.... NCTraveler Nov 2013 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Video: Elizabeth Warren d...»Reply #36