While my inner skeptic warns the Warren appointment may be little more than window dressing

[whatchamacallit]

I'd like to believe she's bright enough and has enough integrity to avoid being used as a political token. If she accepts, I'll put this in the win column for team Obama.

[lillypaddle]

1. Gee, what a relief

:eyes:

[whatchamacallit]

3. I know my opinion doesn't mean shit

but neither does yours or anyone else's on this board for that matter.

[chimpymustgo]

16. Here's the best, most succinct "take" I've seen from Ezra Klein:

Elizabeth Warren cont'd

Jon Cohn talked to some folks and came away with a generally optimistic take on Elizabeth Warren's interim nomination. Same goes for Matt Yglesias.

I'm still a bit more ambivalent. First, I mistrust decisions that can be easily spun in different ways to different audiences. Talking to the lefty blogger crowd, the administration can say that this shows the depth of their support for Warren, and in no way prevents a permanent nomination from occurring at some later date. The reality, as they've been explaining, is that the Senate isn't moving nominations right now and the Republicans are filibustering everything, so in the short-term, it was this or nothing.

And all that's true. On the other hand, it would also be easy to explain this to a member of the financial industry. The grass-roots pressure to appoint Warren was overwhelming. But this way, she's merely an adviser. She doesn't actually have the powers of the office. And after doing this, there's no way Senate Republicans will ever let her have the permanent spot. Warren's interim appointment makes the politics of a permanent appointment almost impossible.

And here's the thing: Both explanations are true! Republicans really are holding up the nomination process. In the short term, it really was this or nothing. Over the long-run, this really will make it impossible to imagine Republicans letting Warren through a confirmation process. Whether this is a good or bad outcome depends on your assessment of the counterfactuals, in which Obama either didn't appoint her at all or tried to appoint her and faced a fight he may or may not have won against the Republicans in Congress.

By Ezra Klein | September 16, 2010; 12:38 PM ET

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/eli...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. lol

[bobbolink]

8. So, your goal is to shut down discussion, right?

You're doing a very fine job of it.

[MineralMan]

2. Perhaps your inner skeptic is wrong, as usual.

[whatchamacallit]

6. My skepticism is well founded. (nt)

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gateley]

9. Rachel said something about the "adviser" role being free from having to

enter under the "cone of silence" if she were actually an appointee to a real position. I'll go find the snip and listen again and post it here if I find it.

I think she does have integrity and can't be made to toe the company line, which is probably why Geithner was so against her. And why Dodd was trying to thwart her appointment.

So I DO count this as a win in the Obama column, I was afraid she wouldn't be included at all, in any capacity.

BTW, after Biden's interview w/Rachel last night (part 2 tonight!) I'm realizing AGAIN that they are really doing far more of the right things than we're aware of, we're just not privy to all the machinations that they engage in. I'm feeling better and better, and with Obama coming out swinging and naming names, :bounce: :hi:

[Cleita]

10. Look upon it as the camel's nose under the tent.

Once she has the access, I believe she will be running the whole thing before long and no Republican greedsters will be able to stop her.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

15. Are the "Republican greedsters" the true problem here?

Or is it the fact that Chris Dodd and Tim Geithner ensured that this new "agency" would be ultimately controlled by the Federal Reserve?

Elizabeth Warren would no doubt be on the side of the people. But if those who are enemies of the people have veto power over her decisions, then what can she actually accomplish?

[Cleita]

17. We all know that Chris Dodd and Tim Geithner

are protecting their banker johns. It's time to cross the street and move away from them.

[27inCali]

11. even good news is bad news in Bizarro world

How can people even call themselves Progressive, when the only thing they give a shit about is pissing all over any progress being made?

[EFerrari]

13. Do you mean, thinking through a nomination is now not progressive?

What does that leave, applauding or ignoring or what?

[EFerrari]

12. That's pretty much the conclusion I came to, too.

It's hard to see her in a role that involves complicity. I don't think she'd take it.

[whatchamacallit]

19. Yeah, and I hope she'll reject it if it doesn't smell right

but she obviously knows the nuts & bolts better than any of us. :)

[grasswire]

14. that's a reasonable position

Remember what St. Ronnie used to say: Trust, but verify. Lord knows we Americans have been kicked in the teeth enough to be skittish. And Obama's track record with appointees for economic issues hasn't exactly been reassuring.

[whatchamacallit]

18. Exactly. I guess we'll see what it all means... (nt)