Senate Dems Invented A Leadership Spot For Elizabeth Warren

[meegbear]

Source: TalkingPointsMemo.com

Senate Democrats are elevating Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to a new leadership position on Thursday. She will help shape policy and messaging for the party.

Warren will also serve as a liaison to liberal organizations, according to The Huffington Post.

A top Democratic leadership aide told TPM that "the idea was to create a position in leadership for her within the Democratic Policy and Communications Center, which is the messaging and policy “war room” chaired by Senator Schumer and Vice Chair Stabenow."

Warren, of course, is a favorite of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. She's recently played a key role asa top surrogate for embattled Democrats in the last election cycle (making late-game trips to help Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH). By April of 2014 Warren had raised over $1 million for 26 Senate Democrats in the cycle.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-senate-democratic-leadership

---

My senator!!

[vi5]

1. This is good, but....

How about they see too it that more Dem Senators follow her lead in the things that she stands for and the positions she stakes out. I hope this isn't just a "Oh, ignore those 30-40 center-right corporate Wall Street Dems.......look at this shiny new Elizabeth Warren leadership position instead!!!!"

[arcane1]

2. I'm going to assume this is a good thing and not just an empty gesture to the lib'ruls.

Unless/until I have reason to believe otherwise

[RufusTFirefly]

3. It's taken years of incubation, but I've become pretty suspicious of such gestures

I'm reminded of State and Main, a movie about making a movie, where the producer and director buy people off and shut people up by giving them an associate producer credit.

Joseph Turner White: What's an associate producer credit?
Bill Smith: It's what you give to your secretary instead of a raise.

The fact that it's a position especially created for her makes me very suspicious.

[Voice for Peace]

5. It looks to me like they are putting somebody in place who is brave enough

to stand against the Republican majority. So I see it as a good
thing, and I don't think she can be sidelined. She's not that
dumb, and she's not corruptible.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. I definitely agree with your last sentence. Not so sure about the others though. n/t

[JDPriestly]

16. She is articulate and can explain things to morons so that they iunderstand.

That is exactly what we need considering that most of the Republicans in Congress are morons.

She taught at Harvard Law School -- the best and brightest as well as the most privileged and most out of touch with the real world. She knows how to explain things so that people learn but don't feel talked down to.. She is very tactful and knows when to say she doesn't know. She has real humility because she has never forgotten that she came from an ordinary, near poor family.

For those suspicious of Elizabeth Warren, read her book A Fighting Chance.

She is a truly a wonderful person and a caring person. She doesn't pretend.

Brilliant humility are the words I would use to describe her most accurately.

[RufusTFirefly]

21. I don't think anyone here is suspicious of Elizabeth Warren

I think many of us are suspicious of the Democratic Party's motivations.

[RufusTFirefly]

26. No single individual (sorry Christians!) should be viewed as a savior

We need some serious systemic changes. One person can start the ball rolling, but she won't be enough. To rest all our hopes on the shoulders of a single individual is to set ourselves up for disappointment and disillusionment. There's a reason that the Executive Branch is Article II of the Constitution, not Article I.

As Democrats, we need to define our ideals, policies, and principles, and then find a candidate who best embodies them. We should not be distorting our core beliefs to match the views of the person who is most "electable."

[JDPriestly]

42. Here is where I especailly agree with you.

As effective as Elizabeth Warren is, she can't do everything by herself. She is a great spokesperson and she can start the ball rolling.

Agreed on the following especially:

As Democrats, we need to define our ideals, policies, and principles, and then find a candidate who best embodies them. We should not be distorting our core beliefs to match the views of the person who is most "electable."

[MADem]

50. She's a rainmaker. It's a sensible decision.

Reid wouldn't have done it if he didn't have a game plan in mind.

Warren doesn't need a "raise." She was Chair on banking, so now she's ranking. They STILL have to listen to her, and the media will go to her first, in any event, the same way they always went to McCain (who isn't even ranking and won't be chair) on SASC shit.

The one with the reputation gets the attention, and she has the reputation.

[Deny and Shred]

4. This is to get her in the fold

Ultimately, to bring her to heel before she causes a rift. The dem leadership recognizes they haven't appealed one iota to liberals.

She gets to be the lone liberal voice and attempt to carry the message to that pesky left. Trust, don't kill, the messenger?

The party won't adopt her policies.

[JDPriestly]

15. Elizabeth Warren would never cause a rift.

Elizabeth Warren will do what all Democrats should do: speak their piece. Be themselves and speak for themselves.

And you are right: "The dem leadership recognizes they haven't appealed one iiota to liberals."

Elizabeth Warren raised money from ordinary voters. That's what the Democratic Party leadership wants to learn from her.

Also, Elizabeth Warren campaigned hard for right-wing and left-wing candidates this past election. She paid her dues. She deserves to be heard. She works hard. She is loyal. But she recognizes the difference between pandering and loyalty.

Go, Elizabeth Warren. Speak truth to power in your beautiful, courageous, honest way.

I just hope the fools in the hierarchy of the Democratic Party really listen to Elizabeth Warren.

Unlike most of them, she did not spend her life catering to the next-up rung of politicians. She worked and studied and learned and knows more about the economic plight of the American people than the rest of the so-called leaders of the Democratic Party put together.

Now if they will only listen to her, we may win in 2016. But I'm not betting on it.

The Larry Summers' types abound.

[Deny and Shred]

18. I think we agree

I'm saying she has an appeal that the party recognizes and fears. The party wants to de-fang her before she rallies the left away from the party center. They want her to carry their water. The want her in their fold so they can control her, use her appeal to carry their message.

They won't listen to her.

[JDPriestly]

44. 'They won't listen to her" at their peril.

Have you read her book. Did you read the anecdote she tells about her meeting with Larry Summers?

She is not about to trade silence for being with the "in" crowd. She is outspoken as she should be. That is not likely to change.

[Deny and Shred]

46. Didn't read it.

If she won't play ball, then she won''t take the 'leadership' position.

Perception of peril and actual peril are two different things. I believe the party fears losing the hedge fund/Wall St funding more than losing their soul. I refer to recent history as my example.

The party wants her on board, not for her opinions, but to quell those pesky lefties. If she refuses, they will go with other methods of neutralizing her potential influence.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. They are giving her a high profile.

Let's see what she does with it. This is a good thing.

[earthside]

7. I hope this isn't a trap.

Give her a 'leadership' position and then expect that she tow the party line 100 percent.

I, too, am suspicious that this isn't a maneuver to clear the way for Hillary by making it harder for Warren to challenge if she so decides later on.

[sadoldgirl]

9. Of course it is a trap in y view.

a) to keep the base quiet, b) to discourage her from running against the anointed one.

[Fla Dem]

13. I would think Elizabeth Warren is one smart cookie and would see a blindside coming from

100 miles away. Having said that, I hope it isn't a trap.

[Maineman]

37. After reading her latest book, I agree she will back away from any trap or sidelining.

Heck, she demanded some serious clarifications and reassurances from Obama at times.

[JDPriestly]

8. Great! Warren raised money for other Democrats.

She should have a voice in the messaging of the party and more.

Maybe if the Democratic Party had given her a role in the messaging before this last election, some of our candidates would have had a better message to run on.

You know what I like about Elizabeth Warren?

She is not ashamed to be what she is: a poor girl who studied hard, worked hard and used her intelligence and education to help others.

If we in the Democratic Party just send that message: no matter who you are, where you come from, what color your skin is, who your mommy and daddy are or were, if you study hard, work hard and use your intelligence and education to help others (as well as yourself and not just yourself), you deserve to to live in dignity, then we will be OK. We will attract voters, and voters will bother to come out and vote for us.

What Americans want is a fair chance and honest government. Right now, we have neither.

So bringing Elizabeth Warren and all the Americans who want what she wants -- a fair chance and honest government -- into the decisionmaking elite of our Party is the best news I have heard of in a long time.

Now if Bernie Sanders decides to "come out" as a Democrat, we will be really making progress.

[JeffHead]

52. +1 Right there with you JD.

[magical thyme]

11. color me very suspicious with a large dash of cynical, for all reasons posted above. nt.

[elleng]

12. This is good BECAUSE she won't settle for b.s.

Will be interesting to see how her relationship with Schumer develops.

[PFunk]

14. I'm sorry but this smells

To be it looks like the corporate/DINO/3rd way dems are trying to both get points with liberal/progressive dems while getting Warren-and her views herself stealthy out of the way.

[albino65]

19. This is bad

They are merely trying to keep her close to shape her message and keep her under their thumb. If she gets into bed with them she will get a PTD (Politically Transmitted Disease). There is no known cure.

[agtcovert]

20. Liberal wing of the Democratic party

I'd like to think that's a redundant statement.

Sadly not.

[angrychair]

32. so true

When the hell did I become a liberal in the Democratic Party?

[BrotherIvan]

22. I hope the party poobahs read this thread

We trust Senator Warren, we don't trust YOU. She better be in charge of policy, not just "messaging" while all the corporate toadies just serve their masters.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. Schumer needs to be taught what "liberals" are....

He just thinks they're bad for business crybabies.

[SoapBox]

25. If the Pukes and Baggers "invented" a position it would be non-newsworthy.

But since it's Dems...news!

[Township75]

27. Yeah don't give a successful qualified woman a real leadership role in the senate

She can just motivate the basto raise money or something....just keep her out of the REAL policy stuff!

[rhett o rick]

28. We aren't supposed to look gift horses in the mouth, but since when have we been given

gift horses or any gifts for that matter. I am very skeptical. What would make the conservative leaders of our party suddenly decide to be nice to liberals?

[FoxNewsSucks]

29. Anything that helps Warren is great, but

why does the Democratic Party need a liaison to liberals? Are corporate leadership Dems admitting that it is no longer a "liberal" party?

[djean111]

30. I hope this is not just the Congressional equivalent of being Vice President.

[Roland99]

31. "a favorite of the liberal wing of the Democratic party"

"the liberal wing" should not be a necessary descriptor when discussing the Democratic Party.

[angrychair]

34. that line breaks my by heart

I thought that being a liberal was who the Democatic Party was and is but that appears to no longer true.

[longship]

33. The cynicism here is thick.

For fucking Christ! This is our party, not the GOP.

I am astounded that people here are actually putting forth some stoooopid conspiracy theory that this is some way to subvert or control Warren, or to hide her in a "basement janitor closet" (in another thread), or some other insidious cockamamie idea.

Maybe Reid likes the stuff she's made of and recognizes her worth. <== my interpretation.

But that would not fit the "Reid is evil; Democrats are evil" narrative prevalent here on DU since the midterms.

[angrychair]

35. not hard to be cynical

Did you miss this statement from the article:

"Senator Warren will be a liaison to the liberal groups in our base to ensure that they have a voice in leadership meetings and discussions," the source said."

What the hell is a "liberal group" in the Democratic Party? Are we not all liberals?

When did Democrat leadership start needing a liaison to talk to what should be the mainstream for the Democratic Party? Are Warren's ideas so fringe for Democrat leadership?

So confused as to the direction my party want to go in at this point.

[longship]

38. Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I look at the fact that Warren will have a seat at the table to be a positive step.

Apparently, many here see it as some insidious plot to control her. Screw them. They sound like Rush Limpballs and his interminable political conspiracies. That's just the kind of narrative that the GOP might trot out. And often do.

DU is Democratic Underground, not Both Parties are Alike Underground, which also plays into the GOP's hand.

My opinion of Warren is such that she is intelligent enough to not allow Senate leadership to subvert her.

Apparently, many professed Warren supporters here think much less of her.

[Maineman]

36. I am not the least bit religious, but Longship, I think your language is despicable.

[longship]

40. Did not mean to offend.

But the use of strong language is not against DU rules. I reserve the right to do so when I feel it is appropriate.

I do not make personal attacks here. My invective was addressed to the recent DU lunacy against the Democratic leadership in the Senate that implies that Warren's promotion to that leadership is in some way insidious.

Get a bowl, a spoon and some milk, because that idea is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. That's my opinion. Yes, expressed very strongly.

If you disagree, I would appreciate it if you would address it in other than a purely rhetorical means.

Or, let me put it in other terms. I am gob smacked by many of the posts here about Warren's promotion to Senate leadership.

Possibly you should be, too.

Or maybe you'd prefer to argue about naughty words.

Sorry. Passions often are high here. Naughty words are fairly common. Try the Rude Pundit posts here on DU some day. My post was tame in comparison.

My best regards.

[Maineman]

48. How many people are turned off -- avoid engaging here -- because they are offended by extremely

crude language? --which is actually fairly rare. You might try using a thesaurus to help you select strong meaningful words to support your ideas and passions rather than simplistic vulgarity. I am here for the ideas and passions also, but I tend not to hang out with persons whose communication style is embarrassing and suggests some sort of ... (undesirable individual).

[longship]

49. I appreciate your opinion.

I am usually fairly spare with spicy language and would normally agree with your opinion.

But there is a time to spice things up a bit. The decision of when that is is in the mind of the one making the post. If you are personally offended, I don't know what to say beyond, "I am sorry that colorful language upsets you so much. I hope that you don't sour on DU as there is quite a bit of such color here."

I don't recommend that you click through to a Rude Pundit post.

Peace. My friend.

[Deadbeat Republicans]

39. Please avoid small planes Senator.

[Hoppy]

41. Her first test will be with how she liaisons with the left on Keystone vote.

Will she work to justify bullshit?

[NorthCarolina]

47. Democrats Just Now Creating their First Liberal Liason position.

So, does that mean that a Liberal voice has heretofore been excluded from Democratic Leadership participation? Certainly appears to be the case.

[Art_from_Ark]

54. That reminds me of an old AT&T jingle:

"Reach out, reach out and touch someone
Reach out, reach out and just say 'Hi'..."

[peacebird]

51. Will they LISTEN to her, or is this to shut US up? As a bone to the libs....

[hollowdweller]

53. What she needs to do

Is to identify 4 or 5 different things and then get everybody to talk about them.

Look at the GOP, they have coordinated messaging. It works.