Warren on Obama Admin: “They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes, jobs"

[kpete]

SUNDAY, OCT 12, 2014 04:00 AM PDT
EXCLUSIVE: Elizabeth Warren on Barack Obama: “They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. And it happened over and over and over”
"There has not been nearly enough change," she tells Salon, taking on Obama failures, lobbyists, tuition. So 2016?

..........


I want to start by talking about a line that you’re famous for, from your speech at the Democratic National Convention two years ago: “The system is rigged.” You said exactly what was on millions of people’s minds. I wonder, now that you’re in D.C. and you’re in the Senate, and you have a chance to see things close up, do you still feel that way? And: Is there a way to fix the system without getting the Supreme Court to overturn Citizens United or some huge structural change like that? How can we fix it?

That’s the question that lies at the heart of whether our democracy will survive. The system is rigged. And now that I’ve been in Washington and seen it up close and personal, I just see new ways in which that happens. But we have to stop and back up, and you have to kind of get the right diagnosis of the problem, to see how it is that—it goes well beyond campaign contributions. That’s a huge part of it. But it’s more than that. It’s the armies of lobbyists and lawyers who are always at the table, who are always there to make sure that in every decision that gets made, their clients’ tender fannies are well protected. And when that happens — not just once, not just twice, but thousands of times a week — the system just gradually tilts further and further. There is no one at the table…I shouldn’t say there’s no one. I don’t want to overstate. You don’t have to go into hyperbole. But there are very few people at the decision-making table to argue for minimum-wage workers. Very few people.

............

Here’s the penultimate question: everything you’re saying are issues that have been important to me most of my adult life. In 2008, I thought I had a candidate who was going to address these things. Right? Barack Obama. Today, my friends and I are pretty disappointed with what he’s done. I wonder if you feel he has been forthright enough on these subjects. And I also wonder if you think that someone can take any of this stuff on without being president. You know, there are a lot of good politicians in America who have their heart in the right place. But they’re not the president. Well anyhow. You understand my frustration…

I understand your frustration, Tom and, actually, I talk about this in the book. When I think about the president, for me, it’s about both halves. If Barack Obama had not been president of the United States we would not have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Period. I’m completely convinced of that. And I go through the details in the book, and I could tell them to you. But he was the one who refused to throw the agency under the bus and made sure that his team kept the agency alive and on the table. Now there was a lot of other stuff that also had to happen for it to happen. But if he hadn’t been there, we wouldn’t have gotten the agency. At the same time, he picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street.

You might say, “always.” Just about every time they had to compromise, they compromised in the direction of Wall Street.

That’s right. They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over. So I see both of those things and they both matter.

Much more:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/12/exclusive_elizabeth_warren_on_barack_obama_they_protected_wall_street_not_families_who_were_losing_their_homes_not_people_who_lost_their_jobs_and_it_happened_over_and_over_and_over/?utm_source=huffpost_politics&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

[MannyGoldstein]

1. That woman is brilliant

Handles that so adroitly.

[vt_native]

2. But Manny, my third way DLC approved media....

tells me that populism is a dead end, because.......hippies, or something.

[blackspade]

86. No, no, no...because...

FREEDOM!

[Tommymac]

115. Populism is Eurasian. We are now at War with Eurasia.

[Supersedeas]

143. or something....it is a privileged perspective

[L0oniX]

11. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025631843

Did you miss this one?

Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation last week reminds us of an infuriating fact: No banking executives have been criminally prosecuted for their role in causing the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.

“I blame Holder. I blame Timothy Geithner,” veteran bank regulator William K. Black tells Bill this week. “But they are fulfilling administration policies. The problem definitely comes from the top. And remember, Obama wouldn’t have been president but for the financial contribution of bankers.”

And the rub? While large banks have been penalized for their role in the housing meltdown, the costs of those fines will be largely borne by shareholders and taxpayers as the banks write off the fines as the cost of doing business. And by and large these top executives got to keep their massive bonuses and compensation, despite the fallout.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. Ok, has she actually said,

"I WILL NOT run for the presidency in 2016" because if she hasn't, that sounds like a gauntlet throw at Hillary.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. LOL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/23/elizabeth-warren-could-end-the-presidential-speculation-today-she-has-chosen-not-to/

[Le Taz Hot]

6. Shit!

See? I knew it. I was convinced that she was going to run in 2016 but I thought I saw something posted here that claimed she said, "I will not run for president in 2016" or something close to it.

I've been around politics long enough to know a stump speech when I see it and every time I see her speak I hear a stump speech. And now this? Manny, this is a REALLY telling statement on her part. Tell me that wasn't a shot across the bow at Hillary.

Holy shit. She's considering running. I KNEW it.

[littlemissmartypants]

17. I'm trying to guess who HRC will choose as VP...

What do you think?

[rhett o rick]

34. Goldman-Sachs

[irisblue]

56. ^^LOL^^maybe?

[antigop]

65. Lloyd Blankfein: "I held fundraisers for her." (HRC) nt

[littlemissmartypants]

76. ...

‘I’m a highly functional paranoid,’ says Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein

http://m1.marketwatch.com/articles/BL-MWTELLB-14650?mobile=y&mobile=y

[Fearless]

104. Zing!!

[billhicks76]

105. Exactly.

I'm excited to NOT vote for Hillary and if moderate Dems are too stupid and lazy to nominate her and not find a real candidate then expect to lose in 2016.

[littlemissmartypants]

107. Well done!

[wyldwolf]

22. Elizabeth Warren: ‘I am not running for president’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pledged Wednesday to serve out her term and sought to pour cold water on the idea that she might run for president in 2016, according to the Boston Herald.

"I'm not running for president and I plan to serve out my term," Warren said at a news conference for Boston mayor-elect Marty Walsh, the Herald reported. Pressed further, Warren said she would "pledge to serve out my term."


Warren added: "I am not running for president. I am working as hard as I can to be the best (possible) senator I can be."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/04/elizabeth-warren-i-am-not-running-for-president/

[LawDeeDah]

58. at this very moment, no one is 'running for president' or have you news the rest

of us missed?

[wyldwolf]

62. Don't you think everyone has already read that silly spin?

She's pledged to serve out her term as Senator.

It's clear to everyone except the desperate.

[LawDeeDah]

66. There is only one answer: Time

It will be the one to tell us what is true and what is not. I'm prepared to say that I was wrong, that Warren must not have been considering running if I read it all wrong.

If she does run, are you willing to say you were wrong?

Even though I would really, really like the idea of President Warren, I am not so 'desperate' as to so desperately believe that, no matter what, like I have some wormhole secret crystal ball into the future.

[wyldwolf]

68. of course.

[dsc]

9. she has told people setting up committees on her behalf to stop doing so

that is a fairly definitive step.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Yet,

she hasn't actually said, "I will not run for President in 2016" and that tells me something too. She may have told people to stop setting up committees because she hasn't made up her mind yet.

[wyldwolf]

23. Elizabeth Warren: ‘I am not running for president’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pledged Wednesday to serve out her term and sought to pour cold water on the idea that she might run for president in 2016, according to the Boston Herald.

"I'm not running for president and I plan to serve out my term," Warren said at a news conference for Boston mayor-elect Marty Walsh, the Herald reported. Pressed further, Warren said she would "pledge to serve out my term."


Warren added: "I am not running for president. I am working as hard as I can to be the best (possible) senator I can be."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/04/elizabeth-warren-i-am-not-running-for-president/

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Hillary's said she's ruled out running for President in 2016

But that's different, yes?

[wyldwolf]

32. Has anyone denied she said it?

I mean, she said it, and no one here is DENYING she said it or trying to parse it to mean something she didn't say.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. You must be thinking of a different site. nt

[wyldwolf]

37. show me where anyone here has denied Clinton said, in 2012, she would not run in 2016

[MannyGoldstein]

41. What does 2012 have to do with it? nt

[wyldwolf]

43. Games, Manny? Means you got nothing.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. So you have no reason.

You're silly.

[wyldwolf]

46. Right, I have no reason

You're incoherent.

[A Simple Game]

74. You are reading into her words what you want to hear.

"I'm not running for president and I plan to serve out my term,"

No she isn't running for President, nor is anyone else... at this time. But she is making as many waves as anyone else is... at this time. I plan to serve out my term, and I plan to become a millionaire next year, although my plans sometimes change with time, I bet at one time she never planned to be a Senator either.

[wyldwolf]

75. What does "I plan to serve out my term" mean?

I haven't seen so my 'progressive' psychics - knowing what someone 'really meant' - since Howard Dean ran.

[A Simple Game]

79. I thought I answered that in my post. But have you ever made a plan that needed to be

altered, changed, or postponed, maybe you ran out of money, got sick, ran out of time, or some other unforeseen event occurred, or things otherwise just didn't come out as "planned."

Did you ever tell a spouse, boss, or someone else that you "planned" to do something when in reality you had no such plan at all? I'll clean the garage on Tuesday dear, but think to yourself "just not next Tuesday."

I'm sure you know all of this, politicians all play this game and it's not even any little bit of a secret. You don't announce too soon, just like Hillary hasn't and won't, to lower the risk of being attacked. They all do it.

Did she say that she "would" serve out her term? No, she said she "plans" to serve out her term. Funny thing about "plans."

[wyldwolf]

84. So you have special insight into her future plans.

[A Simple Game]

92. No you are the one with the special insight. I have been saying all along that

just because she "plans" to stay in the Senate it doesn't mean she will. The only thing I am saying is you can't say with 100% accuracy that a "plan" will come out as "planned." There are very few absolutes in life other than death, not even taxes are absolute because the very rich seem to have somewhat beaten those odds.

You on the other hand say that because she "plans" to stay in the Senate that she must and will absolutely stay in the Senate.

[cascadiance]

80. People "plan" a lot of things... That doesn't mean that plans don't change...

I've heard many people say that they "plan" to stay in their current job, but then tomorrow they might get the perfect opportunity on their doorstep and they give notice.

There are a lot of reasons for her to "plan" on staying as senator at that point. That doesn't mean if circumstances change, whatever circumstances they may be that govern her current plans, that she might change her plan to run or not to run. Many of us still want someone like her to run. We can speculate in many areas what her "circumstances" might be for running for president. And many of us will try to see if grass roots movements or the like can help update the landscape and circumstances so that she might look to run.

Many of us feel that no matter whether she really does plan or not plan to run, now is really NOT the time for her to announce that she's running. It doesn't do her any good to announce this early, and may do her harm with the PTB then loading up their weapons to shut her down as soon as possible. Better to wait to have defenses better prepared for that, and not be the "distraction" from 2014 election efforts that many would complain about if she were to announce before this election.

[wyldwolf]

82. So you do have some other wordly insight!

[cascadiance]

87. Never said I did... Just that you DON'T have that insight either!

And you don't KNOW what she's going to do any more than we do! Just like you don't KNOW what Hillary will eventually do or not do!

All of the rest of us are doing is saying that we HOPE she will run and that the only thing to know is that there is no certainty on their plans in the future. You apparently have more insight to claim that you DO know the future!

[wyldwolf]

111. But I do take people at their word. YOU apparently don't.

[cascadiance]

119. I do that AT THIS MOMENT she's not running...

And at this moment Hillary is not running either. You apparently don't take Hillary for her word that she's not running at this time too. You believe that she will later change the status of her not running and decide to run.

I also believe it possible that Warren will change her status LATER and decide to run. I also note that that you continue to ignore, that Warren is far more likely to keep her plans of this secret, as her being public about running now is likely to cause her more damage with the greater amount of the PTB 1% forces aligned against her than against Clinton.

[wyldwolf]

122. ...and she has given no indication she is - which is why you resort to parsing her words.

[cascadiance]

123. You must be really WORRIED about her to continue this discussion!

If you really don't care because you believe that she is "proven" to not have any intention of running, then WHY do you continue to post responses tot his conversation? I love that you are, because it just shows that you ARE worried about Warren being a threat to Clinton in your efforts to continue to deny with some sort of "omniscient knowledge" of yours that there's any chance of Warren running.

Keep posting... I'm laughing at every post and attempt to keep us from talking about Ms. Warren!

[wyldwolf]

126. Not worried at all. I've said many times I'd welcome her.

[cascadiance]

128. Then why do you continue to argue with us?...

Who just want to make the case for her to run in the primaries?

[wyldwolf]

136. I'm merely correcting the record.

[cascadiance]

138. Correcting implies that what we have said is WRONG! You've not been able to do that!

You are just stating your OPINIONS here and what you yourself call "beliefs" that Hillary will run and Warren won't. I'm tired of these useless conversations. I have other more constructive things to do.

[wyldwolf]

145. cascadiance says Warren hasn't said she's not running. Warren says she has. Record corrected.

[cui bono]

109. I think the real issue is...

why are you trying to so hard to convince people she isn't running? You don't want her to run?

[wyldwolf]

112. I think the real issue is...

she has repeatedly said she isn't so why are people trying to convince us she is?

[cascadiance]

120. But why do you care so much to keep posting so much that she isn't?

If Hillary is supposedly got the nomination in hand already, WHY DO YOU CARE to even talk about Warren's chances, if they are really as small as you claim? Answer? You DO fear Warren running, because you KNOW that she represents more of the large masses of dissatisfied people in this country instead of the small fraction of people with money that you seem to be concerned more about.

If you don't care about Warren and feel she's inconsequential as a candidate in 2016, then why don't you prove it by stop posting here on her constantly to everyone. Heck, I have a tough time just finding time to respond to you, let alone so many others out there that you seem to prioritize having time to respond to on this topic.

[wyldwolf]

121. I don't. If someone repeatedly said the world was flat, I'd correct that, too.

[cascadiance]

124. And there's a far greater chance that Warren might run for president than the world being flat...

... now isn't there? Or do you really feel that Warren is a robot that you've programmed that is preprogrammed to never run for president? There is no FACT you are arguing for here in trying to dismiss others from talking about any possibility of her running.

[wyldwolf]

125. So? She's said she isn't and I take her at her word.

[cascadiance]

129. And I take Hillary for her word now that she "IS NOT RUNNING NOW" either!

Now, we can both project what might happen in the future, and I will agree that there are far more hints of Hillary running at this point too.

But I've also made the case that it is far more strategic for a candidate like Elizabeth Warren to avoid passing these hints than Clinton, and therefore, what are the likelihoods of her running at this point are immaterial for those of us who want her to run, since it really isn't a given yet that she's not running just yet. Just that she's not running NOW!

[wyldwolf]

135. OK! Great! But so what?

[cascadiance]

139. Precisely on your constant meaningless responses here...

[wyldwolf]

140. Just because you're talking in circles doesn't mean my responses are meaningless

You're just having issue keeping up with your own words.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. Yes she has....many times....

you just refuse to listen. She supports HRC

[cascadiance]

81. And Hillary Clinton has ALSO repeatedly "not announced" her plans to run either...

You don't give up on her constant refusal to enter the race now do you?

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. I haven't seen her once say "she is not running" but I HAVE seen Elizabeth Warren say so repeatedly

and so have you!

[cascadiance]

90. she is not PLANNING on running!

And you don't have any insight to KNOW that Hillary IS running, because she has NOT said that she IS RUNNING either!

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. WTF are you even talking about?

do you even know because I don't understand the point?

Do you know how few people really believe Hillary is NOT running? Do you realize you are in a minority there? You might as well go with the belief that she IS running and work from that perspective...

[cascadiance]

93. What I *believe* is that the corporate PTB WANT us all to "believe" that Clinton is runniing...

... and that Warren is not. But the FACTS are that NEITHER of them have announced they are running yet.

I do believe that those that want to run for the people's interests and not corporate dollars are more apt to get squashed if they announce at this point or if there is even a hint of them *running* at this point. That is why I see no reason to completely rule out her running, because if she's smart, and I think most of her followers believe her to be a pretty smart lady, she knows that moreso for her than Clinton, she would damage herself by announcing or even passing hints that she will run now.

Now you can as either a paid or not paid supporter of the corporate interests be trying to reinforce that idea that Clinton's definitely in, and Warren's definitely out, because the "masses" edumacated by the corporate media "believe" that to be true.

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. uh wut????

Do you know that MOST people agree with me not you? Hardly anyone doesn't believe she is running. And what difference does it make?





Do you or don't you support whoever wins the Democratic Primary....including if it is Hillary Clinton?

[cascadiance]

96. What I am saying is that what we believe doesn't really matter at this point to them...

I'm not disagreeing with people "believing" that Hillary will run. She hasn't announced yet, but that doesn't mean she won't, and she likely will. If she is "sure" she is running, then why hasn't she announced just yet? I think both Hillary and Warren are going through many thoughts on whether or not they should run, and honestly, there are probably more barriers for Warren to overcome than Hillary. But for some of us to keep shooting down Warren as "not running" any time someone tries to raise the flag for her doing so that a grass roots democracy really ASKS us to do of people we want to lead us, and they dismiss any critique of their own "candidate" who has not announced, because no one should question them as THE choice for the Democratic Party, then I have a problem with that, and I'll keep questioning their logic of "inevitability".

What I WAS saying in the last post you responded to here, is that what I DO believe is that the corporate controlled PTB DO want the polls, rumors, etc. to keep building up Hillary so that we can only have a choice between two corporate friendly candidates and not one that would support the people's interests over corporate interests the way someone like Warren or Bernie Sanders might. THAT is why I think it is harder for someone like Warren, if she is serious about a run, to give any hint she's doing so now. She wouldn't be helping herself and might be hurting herself that much more. Clinton doesn't face that kind of media/publicity threat that Warren does.

That is why I take all of these poll results now with a grain of salt, as I don't think that those that are serious about running have played their cards just yet. The only cards being played are those of the corporate media and lobbyists that want us to believe in the "inevitable choice" between two major party candidates that they can control in 2016.

And I support a candidate because they support my values, not just because they are on a certain "team" (party). If the Republicans were somehow able to nominate a candidate like Eisenhower in 2016, I might have some serious thoughts on who to vote for if Hillary were nominated. Chances of that happening are slim though, so I probably pragmatically will vote for the Democrat, even if I might have to hold my nose doing so, if both of them won't prosecute Wall Street criminals the way even Reagan did during the Savings and Loans crisis.

[fadedrose]

5. Obama had obstacles

caused by his race and his liberalism....and Wall Street had a lot of influence that was a deterrent to his successes there. He tried in vain to get the wealthy to pay higher taxes.

I recall the shutting down of the government, sequestration, and where Harry Reid had to pull the plug to get people nominated for positions with a 50-51 vote.

I recall Cantor the devil and a few other of the Reps in Congress. I recall the disastrous roll-out of the ACA and couldn't accept that some monkey business wasn't involved, tho it's rolling around nicely now. And the VA Hospital mess that he's trying to fix.

He succeeded where no one else did, and the ACA will be improved.

I heard Colin Powell on C-Span yesterday saying that this country must have Universal Health Care, and he sounded confident that it would come.

Women's rights, trying to keep our boys and girls out of war, begging for a raise in minimum wage, gay rights, etc., so many successes, almost equaled by failures, but not entirely.

And he's articulate. We deserved a President at last who could speak and actually make sense. I am so tired of hearing about his failures without pointing to those who caused him to fail.

[rhett o rick]

40. Yes he did have obstacles, but he appointed conservatives, friends of Wall Street as his

advisers and apparently they advised him to go easy on Wall Street in lieu of families.

[fadedrose]

50. Not really..

he appointed friends of the people he was stuck with who were there when he arrived...

He had deals to make, the economy was in the dumps and was going for improvement at this time, not a cure.

Cures take longer and he didn't have enough allies to approve appointees he might rather have had....or take the time to hire whole new departments under them....

That's how I tie it these ends together and I'm gonna stick to my story.

All those people who benefitted from his "errors," are any of them his friends? I doubt it. They took advantage of his inexperience and ran with the money.

[BuelahWitch]

54. "he appointed friends of the people he was stuck with who were there when he arrived"

[ucrdem]

61. First Obama cabinet, that gets exhumed here at least once a day.

It had former Clinton appointees, including Clinton, and a Bush-Cheney holdover, Gates.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmations_of_Barack_Obama's_Cabinet

[littlemissmartypants]

77. Exhumed or baptized by fire,

It is a regular occurrence.
SMH.
The most conspicuously analyzed presidency in history deserves to have all of the inner sanctum assessed and reassessed, until we choose our replacement.

Love the photo!

~ LMSP 🙌

[ucrdem]

83. LOL, that too.

I'm waiting for the next tell-all wherein we learn that Obama's hostile intentions toward JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs were dangerous and inappropriate and only with the greatest effort restrained by his advisors . . .

[littlemissmartypants]

106. And right afterwards

The Secret Service has someone



tazer the prez...?

And it's made into a prime time hit.


Spin. Makes you dizzy. Just before the vomit starts.

My crystal ball's not working well at the moment, but when it does, it will say:
Fasten your seat belt kids, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Thanks for your reply.
Love, Peace and Shelter.
~ littlemissmartypants 🙇

[BuelahWitch]

89. Uh, ok, yes, I remember. n/t

[marym625]

97. Exactly

and tried to get Larry Summers, LARRY END GAME MEMO SUMMERS, to head the Fed. SMDH!

[MontyPow]

103. I don't think liberalism means what you think it means.

[cui bono]

110. Too bad they didn't obstruct his cabinet appointments.

He put Wall Street right in the White House. Or did someone force him to do that?

And what of all the US AGs? Why did he not do the cleansing and appointing of them as every president before him had done? Why did he leave all the Bush appointees in office? And in so many other areas of govt as well? Why did he leave so many Bushies around? He had the power to get rid of them and replace them, why didn't he?

And since when is being articulate something that we should be praising? That should be a given. Just because we had a buffoon in there for a time doesn't mean we should lower the bar for our realistic expectations. I'm so tired of hearing all the excuses of obstructionism without pointing to those things he could easily have changed but chose not to.

[Skittles]

113. you've crammed about every meme in there

[bigwillq]

7. K and R

[Dragonfli]

8. The goal of both parties was clear after the financial collapse: Save the Rich

[SixString]

10. DU Rec.

[DrDan]

12. once again showing why she deserves our vote - if she changes her mind

Last edited Sun Oct 12, 2014, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

[cantbeserious]

14. All Too True - So Much For Hope And Change - No Hope And No Change

eom

[cstanleytech]

15. To be honest I think rescuing the banks made sense at the time and it still does.

The mistake Obama made though was not attaching enough strings to the bailouts such as pressing for criminal investigations and or prosecutions all the way up to the CEO level and demanding limits to the pay and compensation for those at the executive level in the banks.

[zipplewrath]

141. They should have taken a hair cut

They paid the bankers 100% for their "toxic assets". This meant that they scored profits for which they were given bonuses. Something on the order of a 5% cut (well short of the 40% that the private markets would have done) would have eliminated much of the bonus issue.

[cstanleytech]

142. Oh I agree but some here seem to be advocating for letting the banks just go completely

under which imo is just as bad an idea as not implementing the things I mentioned in my other post that should have been done.

[zipplewrath]

144. Execution was everything

"Letting them go completely" could have been done, but the unwinding would have been complicated and obviously no one was ready, much less Timmy and the gang. Dodd Frank hasn't improved this. It will happen again.

[Rex]

16. Sounds like she is running.

[ucrdem]

18. Against Joe Biden.

I can't figure it any other way. And if that's the case I'll give her credit for thinking out of the box, though I'd much prefer Biden.

[LondonReign2]

38. You must prefer certain defeat

Joe is a perpetual gaffe machine, unfortunately.

[ucrdem]

47. Speaking of gaffes, watch Barack introduce Joe as the next President:

Freudian slip or . . .

p.s. as for certain defeat, that's what they said in August 2008.

[Dustlawyer]

19. Ask yourself, why is the system broken? The answer is that we allow our politicians to be bought.

We allow a revolving door between government and the private sector.
How do we fix it? We cut off the bribery (campaign contributions and Super Pacs)! We have Publicly Funded Federal, State, and Local Elections (PFE's)!
How do we get PFE's? We fight for them with a single mindedness that brooks no compromise or distraction of other issues! We organize, spread the word, protest, write letters, and prove that we have enough fed up people who are tired of the PTB picking our candidates for us to vote for while holding our nose! We have to get off of our asses!

[Tommymac]

116. ^^^This^^^ eom

[wyldwolf]

20. Can't wait to see the fall-out over this

I mean, when Hillary was (mis)quoted around the net for 'attacking' President Obama's foreign policy, fingers wagged at her and she was warned she could lose African-American votes for attacking Obama.

It will be interesting to see if the 'progressives' who said this will say the same about Warren.

[LondonReign2]

39. "Progressives", huh?

We already know what center-right "Democrats", i.e., Republicans, have to say.

[LawDeeDah]

51. I don't know if I would fit your definition of a progressive

Sometimes I don't think I even want to be one. but that aside, I am very supportive of both the President and of Ms. Warren. I don't see a need to pick one over the other - one to love and one to hate - because Warren criticized the President. He's a grown up, probably one of the very few on the planet, and I'm sure he knows how this game is played.

Warren for President in 2016. Proven by her record to stand for ordinary people and not to be a ridiculous liar.

[Enthusiast]

21. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

The reason we had such rabid enthusiasm for candidate Obama was because we thought he was going to be on our side. We were mistaken.

[asjr]

26. I believe he was and is still on our side. The Republicans have blind-sided him

at every turn. When the Republicans in the House don't bother to show up to do their jobs too many people blame Pres. Obama.

[cali]

30. he didn't need repubs on this. n/t

[Enthusiast]

33. While I agree that President Obama has been abused by Republicans

I think he appointed far too many Republicans and supply siders for my taste.

[cascadiance]

85. So who is *forcing* Obama to push to "fast track" TPP in secret to the congress?

If he WERE on our side, he'd tell those wanting to push TPP to take a hike down the messed up road that NAFTA gave this country!

[NorthCarolina]

101. Obama didn't have enough of a record really to ID him as absolutely third-way

so they were able to easily mold his "community organizer" work into an illusion of solid "populist" creds. Given the alternative, most bought into the populist narrative through desperation, bouyed and comforted by a catchy call for sorely needed "CHANGE". In fact it was not just change, heck no, it was"CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN" . After 8 years of Bush/Cheney who the heck didn't want some change right?

All in all, one thing I am pretty sure of is that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, makes it to the Presidential General Election who has not been hand picked, vetted, and anointed by the oligarchy. It is hard to accept, but in many ways our votes are just an illusion, and so is our Democracy. But, on the plus side it is the best Democracy that money can buy.

[Enthusiast]

108. You are correct. After the disastrous previous eight years we were ready to believe.

Change You Can Believe In was one of political history's greatest marketing achievements.

[Lobo27]

24. This is why Citizens United has to go away...

Even Warren and Sanders would probably have to take money from companies we would not want them to take from. In order to compete with the money the GoP and other Dems would have.

[kentuck]

25. She is right, you know.

The young President had all the wrong advisers.

[LawDeeDah]

27. Ah, I see. If I like Warren that means I have to hate Obama and

if I like Obama I have to hate Warren.

Nope. I can like and support the both of them - Warren having criticisms about the administration is not something I would ditch her over - that is ridiculous. And Obama not being able to control the money changers, that have ruled the earth for centuries, isn't going to make me think less of him either.

I bet Warren gave Obama a call that went somethig like this:

Well, Barack, I think you know what I am calling about.
Yes, Elizabeth, some think distancing themselves from me will give them advantage - go, knock your socks off, Beth. You have my blessing, you know that. Say whatever you need to to help the democrats beat those disgusting republicans.
Okay, Mr. President, I knew you would understand.
Click

[cali]

31. he made no attempt to do so. and yes, Presidents have gone after "the money changers"

think FDR.

[LawDeeDah]

42. well then FDR didn't complete his work, did he?

otherwise people wouldn't be whinging about how Obama is sleeping with Wall Street and that he is complicit and wants to stick his fingers in the middle and poor pockets, take everything, and give to his buddies on Wall Street.

Ha. Like there is anything about the man that would make one think that.
I think the laws that have done so much harm have been stealthily placed for several decades now and that is one of the reasons the robber barons aren't lined up and thrown in jail.

I happen to believe the President does his best with what he has and is considerate of the people and what an economic meltdown could mean to everyone if those in power make threats to protect themselves.

I don't for a second believe there is a well hidden evil side of the President, an awesome plan he and Streeters have – that is laughable to bend over in belly pain laughter.

[BuelahWitch]

53. A lot of the safeguards FDR put into place were disbanded during the '80s and '90s.

Clinton killed Glass/Steagall.

[LawDeeDah]

57. Yes, that is why electing Mrs. Clinton is such an awesome idea!

We know that she does not like to insult the hands that feed her ridiculous amounts of money for saying blah blah blah, you poor things the rabble are giving you too hard a time and I am so sorry about that. Silly rabble.

Black comedy.

[LawDeeDah]

70. I think it's fine and healthy to recognize good people when you see them.

I see good in the President. A lot of it.
It's dismaying why that would trouble you so. But it makes no matter to me.

[Jack Rabbit]

29. K/R

I consider the failure of government to prosecute banksters or assist their victims not to be a political strategy but a solid fact as irrefutable as Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq without a casus belli.

President Obama, unfortunately, did more than his fair share of defending the 1%. It was his Attorney General who did nothing and his Treasury Secretary who was even more worthless than that. It is President Obama who is now pushing the worst trade agreement ever.

This progressive will certainly not, as somebody suggests he should above, criticize Senator Warren for pointing out a very obvious situation because Mrs. Clinton was criticized for taking a more aggressive stance than President Obama over the present crisis in the Middle East. Frankly, I didn't take part in the criticism of Mrs. Clinton, either. That is not because I agree with her neoconservative foreign policy or her neoliberal economic plans, but because they don't impress me enough to bother responding to anything she has to say.

[Phlem]

45. Huge K&R

[polichick]

48. Good on her - so glad she's talking about the threats to...

democracy itself. imo we haven't had a democracy for quite a few years but few talk about how dire the situation really is.

[bullwinkle428]

49. Liz Warren - apparently, the latest victim of ODS.

K&R.

[blkmusclmachine]

52. The 1% protects itself. Obama bought into their lies hook, line, and sinker.

[Thinkingabout]

55. Could someone tell Elizabeth Warren about the HARP program, maybe she forgot.

[Major Hogwash]

59. No, she didn't forget.

She's just harping on something else.

[Thinkingabout]

60. I guess she can tell her story and will still have her belivers, huh.

[Major Hogwash]

63. She has the memory of an elephant, for Christ's sake!

She should, she used to be a Republican!

[Thinkingabout]

71. Gotcha

[Ed Suspicious]

64. Center right blue dog trickle-downers.

[LittleBlue]

67. But she supports Hillary?

Hillary is the superhero of Wall Street

[Marr]

72. I'm looking forward to the Hillary fans doing a 180 spin and

instantly labeling Warren as THE WORLD'S MOST HORRIBLE PERSON rather than the ultimate, wonderful Hillary endorser.

[treestar]

73. They did a lot for families who were losing their homes!

What a crock. There were relief laws. State ones, too. Bullshit.

They did as much as they could to keep people in their homes - people who could not pay! There were many programs for doing work-outs with the banks to stay in the home.

[MisterP]

78. countdown to "Warren unequivocally supports Hillary" thread in 3, 2 ...

Last edited Mon Oct 13, 2014, 04:11 AM - Edit history (1)

" 'live dog or dead child, it doesn't matter,' the self-admitted leader of the vile Lefties screeched"

[kidgie]

95. TARP helped save my home.

On June 23, 2010, California received approval to develop unique foreclosure prevention proposals with Hardest Hit funding. California was ultimately awarded nearly $2 billion in funds to help eligible California homeowners avoid preventable foreclosures.
My home was saved through KEEP YOUR HOME CALIFORNIA funded by TARP. My first mortgage was paid until my husband found a job. Without it, we would of lost our home. I would not say all families were not helped. Unfortunately not enough families know about this program.

http://keepyourhomecalifornia.org/programs/

[whereisjustice]

98. Holder clasps his hands, smiles broadly and declares "my work is done."

There may be some dispute over Holder's credit as a leader of civil rights. For sure, the civil rights of bankers of all races to endlessly fuck us over without consequences were well preserved under his watch

[Algernon Moncrieff]

99. President Obama signs the bills that Congress passes.

Congress will start the new year with an old fight: whether to extend jobless benefits for 1.3 million long-term unemployed. Obama urged lawmakers to restore the benefits.

"Right now, a bipartisan group in Congress is working on a three-month extension of unemployment insurance -- and if they pass it, I will sign it. For decades, Republicans and Democrats put partisanship and ideology aside to offer some security for job-seekers, even when the unemployment rate was lower than it is today. Instead of punishing families who can least afford it, Republicans should make it their New Year's resolution to do the right thing, and restore this vital economic security for their constituents right now," Obama said.

Democrats argue the program is needed to sustain economic recovery and offer a lifeline to those struggling to keep their heads above water financially. Republicans counter the benefits are an economic drain and a disincentive to looking for work. The Congressional Budget Office estimates continuing them for another year will cost about $26 billion.

Many Republicans, including potential 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, have long insisted that the Great Recession-era extension of emergency federal benefits deters job hunting and is unnecessary as the economy rebounds and unemployment declines.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/04/politics/president-weekly-address/

For all those quaking on the right at the sight of an ascendant Warren, rest easy. Warren’s no lefty. In fact, Warren was a registered Republican into her 40s. When it comes to ideology, Warren makes for a rotten heir to Kennedy.

“I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore,” Warren says. “I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role.”

Did she vote for Ronald Reagan, who ushered in much of the financial deregulation which Warren has devoted her life to stopping? “I’m not going to talk about who I voted for,” she says.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/elizabeth-warren-i-created-occupy-wall-street.html (The same interview when she takes credit for Occupy)

Elizabeth Warren was "in her 40s" from 1989-1999. She stood with the party of Newt Gingrich and Phil Gramm. She stood with George HW Bush. She stood with those people at a time when she was damn well educated enough and old enough to know better.

ICTMN had by that point requested multiple interviews with Warren in order for her to clarify her statements on her ancestry, to explain how she highlighted that self-reported ancestry while working in academia, as well as to examine the fall-out that has occurred in Indian country regarding identity issues as her campaign fiasco has stayed in the news.

In the meantime, throughout the month of May, Warren continued to do interviews with the mainstream and local press, including national appearances on MSNBC.

On May 25, after several more requests from ICTMN, Harney responded by e-mail, “Thanks for your request(s)! I will keep you posted. Thanks for understanding. Have a wonderful weekend.”

To date, Warren has done no interviews with the American Indian press. There are dozens of tribal papers and national Native news outlets, including well-respected Cherokee outlets, that she could have reached out to in order to help calm the controversy and alleviate Native concerns about both her background and its impact on Indian citizens.

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/31/elizabeth-warren-avoids-american-indian-media-115802

So before St. Elizabeth criticizes Barack Obama for things the Senate & House should have done, she should STFU and, instead, explain to us all what she found so appealing about Daddy Bush, Newt, and Phil Gramm (the people really responsible for all of the things she purports to oppose), and she can explain to Native American media what the Hell she was thinking when she claimed Native American ethnicity.

She says a lot of things that appeal to progressives, but she's as phony as a $3 bill.

[Initech]

100. Warren / Sanders 2016!!

[orpupilofnature57]

127. + 1000 !!!

[burrowowl]

102. Elizabeth Warren NAILED IT!

I'm voting Demo this election, but I despair.

[WillyT]

114. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[raouldukelives]

117. K&R

Everyone assisting & funding Wall St is assisting & funding conservative hopes and dreams. You want endless war? A ravaged environment? A police state? Jim Crow laws? Charter schools? War on drugs? Corporate prisons? Corporate candidates? One could do no more to make conservative dreams come true than by being a donator to their cause and a laborer towards those ends.

[dotymed]

118. It is Bernie for me! n/t

[Blue_Tires]

130. The sad part is Glenn Greenwald has nothing good to say about Dems

but he's been pimping the hell out of that quote on Twitter because it gives him an anti-Obama erection...

[cascadiance]

131. So, any quotes out there that he likes Republicans any more?

It is one thing to criticize Democrats, who in this day when they take for granted the horrible state of the Republicans make their own share of corporatized influence mistakes, but it is another to say that he would push out Democrats for Republicans.

[Blue_Tires]

132. oh, he's been on the "Rand 4 POTUS" bandwagon for a good long while...

[cascadiance]

133. It seems like he's more against Hillary Clinton whom he claims McCain supports over Rand Paul...

... amongst other neocons whom he characterizes as a candidate that they can identify with more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html

http://rare.us/story/if-its-rand-paul-vs-hillary-clinton-in-2016-heres-the-republicans-that-might-root-for-hillary/

I don't think he's in love with Rand Paul more than he doesn't like the corporate takeover of our party by many that lead us towards putting Clinton as a candidate in 2016. And I'm not seeing so much that Greenwald himself supports Paul for president. I think he has supported some of Paul's positions on certain things like extrajudicial drone strikes and our many military interventions, but don't think it is clear that he supports Paul over the Democrats in general per se.

It would be interesting to see who Greenwald would support in a race between someone like Warren and Paul.

[Robbins]

134. She's saying what we know

Obama has been too friendly to corporations.

Hillary would be worse than Obama with wall street and corporations

[woo me with science]

137. K&R for the truth.