President Barack Obama has chosen a candidate other than Elizabeth Warren as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a person briefed on the matter.
The president’s choice is a person who already works at the consumer agency, the person said today. Obama may make the nomination as soon as next week, another person briefed on the administration’s plans said.
Another act of weakness by the President, arguably. But a potentially positive development for Massachusetts, and a chance for liberation from Senator Brown’s fumbling incompetence.
Please share widely!
I prefer to speculate that Elizabeth Warren herself came to the conclusion that she can accomplish more for Massachusetts, the US, and herself as a US Senator than as a controversial candidate to head a controversial new agency.
As was already discussed here earlier this month, political sources like Roll Call reported then that Ms. Warren appeared to be contemplating a run for the Senate.
I think this shows courage by both Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama rather than “weakness” by anybody.
In fact, there’s significant evidence that she’s had a falling out with the WH. Note her recent criticism before Congress of the DOJ’s unwillingness to aggressively pursue foreclosure abuses.
It seems pretty clear that this administration has more closely allied itself with the business community than it has to the middle class. Elizabeth Warren has been an annoying fig leaf for these policies.
Here’s the Huff Post link
Either get in the race and get back to Mass. and begin to talk to voters here, rather than the likes of Schumer, Kerry, etc. in Washington, or get out. If she’s in, then let the Dems of Mass. decide if we want her as our candidate. I know nothing about her, other than she’s a Harvard professor, a great consumer advocate, and some power brokers want her to run for the Senate. There are lots of places in the state where 2 of those 3 characteristics won’t play well.
Warren Tolman, Setti Warren, and Lizzie Warren. None of them are any better the Coakley/
n/t
Oh I wish she would.
Ha.
Hey, the comment box nested. Well done.
gets in front of a crowd and opens her mouth, you watch, people will jump on board. She’s that good – smart, articulate, and warm and funny and can connect with people.
If she’s in, I have a candidate. No holds barred.
If Setti married Liz, she’s be Elizabeth Warren Warren!
That’s what you mean, right?
I think the fact that Scott Brown is now a US senator suggests that there are lots of places in the state that might rethink their ideas about what qualities help and what qualities hurt a candidate for the senate.
That she’s from Harvard means nothing to most people. That power brokers from Washington and the Democratic Party are pushing her candidacy will not play well unless she begins to campaign among the people.
I am just not getting this whole Elizabeth Warren could win thing…Obama should have named her to Direct CPB…but he did not have the will to fight the GOP for her…and just because she taught at Harvard does not make her a great candidate for Massachusetts US Senate…when was the last time she was in Haverhill? or North Adams? or Worcester? or any MA city or town outside of the Greater Cambridge loop? Ther eia more to running for office than just being an Obama Adm. cast away or Ivy League prof…
Its population is fewer than 14,000 and it is closer to the capitals of NY, CT, VT, and NH than it is VT. I’m sure its a lovely place but it and its neighbors represent a tiny fraction of the citizenry of Massachusetts.
Seriously, why *would* she go to North Adams? She does work for a living you know. She doesn’t exactly have oodles of free time to just wander over to North Adams and hit up the local Dairy Queen.
I’m not saying that North Adams is not important. I’m saying its worth about 0.23% of a candidate’s time. Over the course of 365 days of campaigning, that’s fewer than one day. Given that Elizabeth Warren isn’t yet a candidate, why in God’s name would she go to North Adams?
Closer to the capitals of NY, CT, VT, and NH than it is MA.
if she were a politician, rather than an academic
That didn’t do her much good.
Coakley was originally born and raised in North Adams.
Surely this factoid puts to bed the assertion that being from North Adams (or Western MA) somehow magically makes one a better candidate.
Let’s PLEASE maintain our focus on things that matter.
There’s more to Massachusetts than Boston-Cambridge-Brookline and Newton…a lot more.
If there is a candidate from Haverhill, North Adams, or Worcester (or anywhere else outside the “Greater Cambridge” loop) that you prefer, then by all means put them forward and promote them.
Why would ANYONE after a Harvard educated President, this Harvard educated Governor, want another Harvard educated quasi-carpetbagger to come here and clutter up an already full field? I have not a clue who this woman is, she has not paid her dues in governance that I know of, and I have a growing distaste for the Harvard waltz-along corporatist philosophy. Whoever she is, she has a ton of courting to do for the rank and file and/or grassroots to have an interest in her.
I don’t think he had any large public image prior to running for Senate. His kickoff was a small event and those in attendance felt he was going to get slaughtered. Elizabeth Warren is personable in a way Coakley wasn’t and in the way Scott Brown is. She could be a very appealing candidate to many people. I read BMG’s interview with Setti Warren and he doesn’t seem like a straight talker the way Elizabeth Warren has been in front of Congress. That is huge.
who was, at the time, little known. The first quality allowed him to overcome the second. EW is little known, and it remains to be seen if she has the skill to overcome that.
It isn’t impossible for an unknown non-politician to succeed in a statewide election; see Patrick, Deval. But Brown is neither the ’62 Mets nor Kerry Healy.
she has the skill to overcome that, and there’s time. Patrick ran his grassroots campaign starting about now in the cycle. If she jumps in the race in the next month or two, she’s got plenty of time. Patrick’s 2006 campaign took forever to snowball (by design). Look how much he won by the first time (both in primary and in the general). It can be done by the right person – and she’s the right sort of candidate to catch fire like that, slowly and from nothing, like Patrick.
Many people among the grassroots know quite a bit about her and love her. My town committee has long been on the Elizabeth Warren bandwagon and would support her candidacy with energy.
As well, your slams at Harvard-educated people smack of an anti-intellectualism we usually see in tea party types like the Christine O’Donnells and Sarah Palins of the world. Progressives celebrate education, not mock it. Yuck.
Odd!
Grover Norquist went to Harvard. George W. Bush went to Harvard Business School. These guys have done real damage to America. Norquist continues to push a false image of Ronald Reagan, trying to paper over Reagan’s 11 tax increases.
A Harvard education is a good one… but many, many progressive/liberal Harvard grads, when in the public discourse, are not strong defenders of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid–the New Deal and Great Society programs that guarantee that people who work hard all their adult lives can have dignity in their sunset years. The generation of my grandparents earned a dignified retirement. My parents’ generation earned a dignified retirement. And for people in the most powerful social network of America (Ivy League alumni) to tell our nation that we can’t afford Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid–well, we have wonder about that.
If you have read my posts over the years, you know very well I am not “anti-intellectual” and that the positions I take and the fights I fight on the front lines and in the trenches are the opposite of Tea Party. What I have seen, over and over, whether from Commissioner Spence or Governor Patrick is an elitism, and assumption that seems hard-wired in that the Harvard Graduate knows more, and is better, than anyone else, educated anywhere else. So many of these Harvar-educated elites like Spence, or Grover Norquist or Bush are corporatists who believe they know what is best. Ergo, freeze court employees – and hire 250 lawyers (Patrick), shrink government and make paying your fair share into a slur (Norquist) or save children by paying more to consultants and vendor agencies than social workers or services (Spence). I have data and direct experience to lead me to be more than quizzical when someone says, “I went to Harvard and I am here to help and save you.” Especially if that persons went to Harvard with trust fund money, or 100% scholarships, grants, and loans. People like me who paid their own way, and support families by work on the direct lines of human pain may well not feel like those who see themselves as dwellers on Mount Olympus are sympatico, or appealing as rulers and leaders. The track record for government by elites for elites is worse all the time.
Is this just summer silliness?
Seriously folks, are we really taking shots at Elizabeth Warren (or any other candidate because they’re from Harvard? Really?
Please … take deep breath. Try and center yourself.
If there is a better candidate than Elizabeth Warren, please offer them. If there are serious and substantive criticisms to be made of Ms. Warren — or anyone else — please make them. But please do not simply trash a candidate simply because they went to Harvard — it demeans you and the candidate.
There must be something in the water. BTW, the point needs to be made that plenty of hard-working students pay their own way through Harvard with loans and typical college jobs because they want one of the finest educations higher ed has to offer? Do we really want the day to come when a student won’t go to Harvard because s/he doesn’t want to be perceived as elitist? Are we moving to an end point at which not going to college or university is the authenticity we value? Ugh. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but I just had to get the off my chest.
Disclosure – yes I am supporting Bob Massie – see http://www.bobmassie.org/
However, each of the candidates brings real strenths to the table. Each of the candidates has higher education degrees – PLEASE I wasn’t trashing higher education – I went and did that myself (got a Juris Doctor) – but that all being said, I admit to having seen and dealt with an “attitude” by some that acts as if only Harvard counts and THAT just is not true – AND the problems stemming from some with Harvard doctorates listed in my comment titled “I don’t mind your YUCK…” – it seems to me that labeling me “Tea Party” for my concerns about the inbred cluster of Harvard graduates, and lack of any info as to Warren doing things outside that cluster should not be made fun of (and surely, you don’t expect to change my mind or make me stand down with ridicule?)
1. I didn’t “trash” Elizabeth Warren, though I did vent about my current disgust as to the cluster of self-congratulatory Harvardians in government who seem to be infatuated with the corporatist philosophy and little interested in ordinary people who are not CEOs and presidents of vendor firms;
2. I did say I didn’t know anything about her probably because she has had no involvement in access to justice or on the ground advocacy that I have come across, and had not seen her working on any of the issues that constitute my core issues, or any issues here in Massachusetts;
3. And NO I don’t feel a need for a new and better candidate, I am thrilled that Bob Massie is running, but then the issues of social justice, the environment, and long range planning he personifies are important issues to me.
I get that you’ve had some bad experiences with Harvard grads. I’m an engineer, I’ve had some HORRIBLE experiences with MIT grads. Nevertheless, that does not mean that Harvard grads make bad politicians or that MIT grads make bad technology leaders. In my view, it means that we consider each person as an individual and ask ourselves whether or not they are the right person for whatever position we are contemplating. No more and no less.
I’m eager to learn more about both Bob Massie and Elizabeth Warren.
I’m eager to find a candidate who (a) is ready to fight for my side in the ongoing class war being waged by the very wealthy against the rest of us and (b) has the training, chops and support system to be successful in that fight. This is the appeal, to me, of Elizabeth Warren. It is also the reason I’ve always liked Mike Capuano. I’m open to Bob Massie or any other candidate who represents my views.
And, I guess, my threshold query as to Elizabeth Warren is why court Warren, who has not declared herself to be a candidate, does not seem to want the job, and isn’t even “around” so to speak. Warren shows no fire in the belly to go after the senate opening, let alone, to “fight for me” in the very real attack on the middleclass by a very very wealthy group including the Koch brothers.
. . when you asked “If there is a better candidate than Elizabeth Warren.” Because the truth is nobody knows what kind of candidate she would be; she hasn’t run for anything.
Although I don’t think it is fair of Amberpaw to lump Elizabeth Warren in with Harry Spence.
I met Spence once in Lynn and approached him concerning a friends children, who had been taken away by Spence’s DSS. I had applied to be a foster/adoption resource for these kids and been turned down. The reason given (in writing) was that I had criticized the agency in a letter.
At the meeting Spence had defended DSS. They didn’t retaliate, he claimed, and he would never tolerate retaliation.
This was a pretty clear case of retaliation, I told him. Would he look into it and get back to me?
Of course he would, he said, looking me right in the eyes.
And of course he was lying. He fobbed my complaint onto some ombudsman, who told me that he never second guessed anything DSS did. Spence himself never answered any of my letters after that.
…that the reality is that Harvard, through several of its programs, promotes a world view that I have found to be very different from mine. As a result, if someone is a Harvard grad, rather than that leading to a liklihood I think they are “good”, it means that person has a harder job convincing me that they have not absorbed Harvard’s biases. That is simply my reality. In the child welfare field, graduates of Harvard Law have often studied under Professor Bartholet, who is a proponent of social engineering via adoption (Spence apparently did so), and as a result, those who studied with/under Bartholet come out with a bias of which many of them are not even aware. And then, because in many quarters, there is a pro-Harvard bias, these graduates have disproportionate impact. So I am a very tiny pushback as to that bias in favor of Harvard’s graduates getting an automatic “they must be right/better – they went to Harvard” !!! So I am not claiming to be fair, just that I have the oppositve bias and am open about it.
I first learned of Elizabeth Warren via PBS’ NOW program. As someone who knows contract law, and has studied bankruptcy, Warren understands (and can communicate) how laws tilt the market against middle-class families. Take a few minutes to read or view the links below:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/warren.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/interviews/warren.html
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10895
I always want to know more. But as someone who almost never (less than an hour a month) watches ANY television or listens to any radio station, those appearances weren’t on my radar – and I meant what I said about having apprehension (more and more) about government by self-perceived elites or either party.
Alan Khazei went to HLS…
…I don’t disagree that she would have lots of work to do getting to know voters. And getting voters to know her…
I’ll repeat that: the majority of citizens of the Commonwealth live within 24.5 miles of Boston City Hall. So I don’t disagree that there’s a lot more land to Massachusetts than Boston-Cambridge-Brookline and Newton… but the fact is, most of the people live inside 495, and if you want to include a wider net cast (say 190 and 195) you probably get to 75%.
Land doesn’t vote in America. People vote. For every person in North Adams there are 50 who live in Boston.
n/t
100% them live within 24.5 miles of Boston City Hall 🙂
Maddow! Now, wait Warren! Somebody from outside the state has to come in here and teach Democrats in Massachusetts that they’re plum suckers for trying to build the party from within!
I’m sorry, but parachuting candidates in is a sign of weakness, and there’s nothing weak about our field, whether Warren and/or Capuano join.
Please!
1) Harvard bashing
Its a sport anyone, myself included, who has had to live around the institution and always felt excluded from it (their rejection letter didn’t help, and their screwing over Cambridge time and time again) plays from time to time. But it doesn’t work here. Like any other institution its a case by case situation what you choose to do with your education. Had Romney choosen to get his JD/MBA from BYU he would still be a prick. . Scalia would have been a prick no matter where he went to, etc. It is up to the student how they choose to use their education, and I do not think a Harvard education makes anyone less capable of representing the people of this state, anti-elitism is another form of blind bigotry, judge people by their record and character and nothing else is what I say. And to AmberPaw directly, I respect that you are in Massie’s camp, but look at the links and you will see this is a record you can admire.
2) Judge the candidates on their record
-Seti Warren has no record since he has been Mayor for ten minutes
-Massie has a lot of hippie Christian Socialist papers he has written, but no record of public service to stand on
-Khazei to his credit has a record of a great public service program, but he is fast becoming this decades Chris Gabrielli and I would hope he employs his talents in a better capacity
-the other candidates frankly I haven’t heard from
Warren as the Editors, Joelpatterson, and plenty of others have pointed out has a great record of fighting the issues this election will directly be about. She is all about jobs, saving the middle class, and taking on corporate power. She can fight Browns faux populism with actual populism and a record of taking on the special interests while he is floating in their corporate money. She is a straight talker with folksy Midwestern charisma to win over blue collars and independents and with the progressive pedigree and yes ivy league intellect to win over the various Peoples Republiks as well. She has a strong record on labor issues. I see her not only uniting the various factions of the state party, the Dunkin and Starbucks drinkers alike, but also appealing to some moderate Republicans and independents that must be fed up with Browns extremism. She is an independent mind and the fact that she has fought this President where he has been wrong should serve her well.
3) Sabutai criticism of white knight syndrome
Sabutai is right on the money that we have white knight syndrome in this state, particularly among progressives, where we favor inexperienced outsiders over proven public servants, people from out of state over people born and raised here, etc. It is partly because Beacon Hill is so dirty we can’t trust anyone who comes from there, partly because so many in the progressive community here are themselves outsiders who stayed past their graduation dates and decided to live here full time so local roots matter a lot less to them, and partly because its easy for candidates with no record to speak of to come in and promise the world without any scrutiny to bury. I am sure Kerry would have governed just as Obama did, the problem is he had 20 years of votes showing exactly that and most voters are turned off by the hard work and compromise and have unrealistic expectations of their government.
I get where Sabutai is coming from, and as two former Capuano supporters we can tell you have frustrating it was for THE progressive candidate to get knifed by this forum and the broader community and have his votes wasted on that white knight Khazei. This time it is different. For one Mike doesn’t have the balls to run and its obvious he is waiting for Kerry’s promotion instead, also he has gone off the deep end a little bit in his criticism of Democratic leadership and his joining the Tea Party on Libya. These two factors make me doubt him as a candidate. Furthermore Warren has all of his good qualities, a record of true public service and fighting progressive battles, straight talking, and a commitment to winning and not just rolling over or taking a vacation. Where they do differ is that she lacks his rough edges, his bitterness, and his lack of appeal outside of Boston. She should be a superior candidate.
4) She isnt in yet folks-calm down
But the fact that even a mere rumor of her candidacy sparks this outpouring of passion should show you how weak the existing field is and how there is still room for a bold candidate to shake things up. Also the downside to those of us on the fence but waiting to jump into her camp, she could be a really shitty candidate. I’ve seen it with Wesley Clark, seen it with Chris Gabrielli, seen it with Tammy Duckworth,. The outsider who is great on paper can sometimes be awful in person and is either so clueless that they are stage managed and come across incredibly awkwardly (Clark and Duckworth to a T) or just lacks the gravitas and charisma of someone who actually wanted to fight for the job (Gabrielli). So time will tell, lets hope for a good race.
I think I am done with this topic…I guess it just annoyed me that someone was pushing a candidate on me who hadn’t declared, wasn’t campaigning and that because my issue advocacy is in very different areas (access to justice, child welfare) I have never heard or met, and therefore, have no reason to believe she wants the job, or cares about the same things I care about. And, of course, I DO have my biases which I am very open about and think I am well aware of, too. On another note, I think known and acknowledged bias is far less dangerous than unknown biases.
…that she’ll be excellent on consumer protection — a rather small part of the Senatorial brief — and merely adopt what consultants tell her to adopt in other areas. In other words, more of the disastrous same.
This is Mass. We have plenty of Harvard grads, so no one is saying that’s bad. It’s more along the lines of, “Who cares?” It means nothing to me one way or the other.
Her problem is that the Democratic Party and Washington is pushing her onto us, rather than allowing the primary process to work as it should.
I am offended that inside the beltway people, and now Mass. Dem. Party insiders, have decided for us who our next Senator should be. Who do they think they are? And yes, such behavior comes across as elitist because it is.
If Elizabeth Warren had really wanted this, she wouldn’t have started her campaign – and in fact completely limited it – to meeting with Washington power brokers. If she thinks this is how you run a campaign and win an election, that’s a big problem. At this point, everyone knows she’s met with these people and they’ve given her their imprimatur, and that will not sit well with a lot of people.
Does not compute. She’ll have to run in the primary just like everybody else. Well, more precisely, she’ll have to get 15%+ of the delegates at the MA nominating convention to even be on the primary ballot, and then she’ll have to win the semi-open primary in order to represent Democrats in the general election.
Means that the candidates get out into communities throughout the state and sell themselves, as opposed to having the power brokers in the Democratic Party hold what appears to be a coronation. It’s obvious to anyone who knows how this process works that the major donors have held back waiting for EW to announce a run. When/If that happens, a good number of grassroots Democrats will not be happy with how this election process is playing out.
that’s what it is there for, after all. At the end of the day, the winner of the Democratic primary will have (a) convinced enough “rank and file Democratic insiders” at the 2012 MA Dem Convention to get a ballot spot, and (b) convinced enough motivated Dems+Unenrolled primary voters to win a plurality of votes.
The power brokers? The ones in DC get 0 votes; the ones in MA get 1 vote each.
And let me say bidd50 you are right on the money, and not only is that not the best way to introduce her candidacy for the primary but it plays right into Browns playbook of ‘the Machine’ telling you who to vote for and the evil MA and national Dem parties manipulating elections to force socialist medicine down our throats. That said, these preliminary meetings should not disqualify her, but I think the Coakley lesson should demonstrate that any candidate, particularly a liberal female one with low name recognition, HAS TO compete on the grassroots level. It is on that level where Brown schooled us, the grassroots passion was with his side. I like Warren over the no names because I feel she can generate that passion, but she should strive to be the grassroots candidate and not the DSCC candidate as best she can. Out here in IL Duckworth has not learned her lesson and is running for Congress again as the DCCC candidates, I suspect she will lose the primary to a better known local candidate with strong progressive roots to the community. I would hope Warren does not make the same mistake Duckworth is.