Elizabeth Warren to be nominated by White House next week, according to Katrina van den Heuvel

[jefferson_dem]

:woohoo:

WH (& others) indicate Elizabeth Warren 2 be nominated next week to head Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Kudos 2 all who worked 4 her

http://twitter.com/KatrinaNation/status/20760409611

[AnnieBW]

1. ABOUT TIME!!!

Seriously!

:applause:

[ZM90]

2. Hell yeah! A huge win for consumers! Rec!

[depakid]

3. They pretty much have to- though It would be better to pick a fight here than do a recess appt.

[WonderGrunion]

6. I'll be waiting for your OP congratulating this sensible appointment

when it happens.

Or I'll wait for monkeys to fly out of my butt. Whichever impossible dream happens first.

[depakid]

8. I've said that they had to do this all along- not because they want to (they don't) but because

they've painted themselves into a corner.

Pure politics here. If there were a way to avoid it without immense political damage, there's every reason to believe the cadre in charge of economic policy would do so.

Many others more knowledgeable on the inner workings of the administration and Wall Street have said the same thing.

[jefferson_dem]

34. Pitiful.

You've been wailing about how he should select Warren because it's the right thing to to. Now that he is likely to do that her appointment is "pure politics" and he wouldn't do it if he didn't have to.

...And any tiny shred of credibility your Obama-critiques had just flew out the window.

[impik]

37. Word, JD. Word.

So predictable, and yet so annoying.

[vaberella]

115. It's ridiculous isn't it. Ugh. n/t

[suzie]

120. +1,000 OR

the number of times since the start of the Obama administration that certain posters have offered up their Obama-critiques.

[grantcart]

136. Face it, it was HIS threads at DU that compelled the President to pick Warren

We should be thanking him for orchestrating the entire thing.

[DevonRex]

64. This is a CYA talking point.

:rofl:

[dionysus]

121. years of oppression by the man have made him cynical... man.

"i was for warren then i realized it was just another cynical ploy by the banksters man. i'm out of here man..."

[rury]

94. Wow, just wow

According to you, President Obama either does the wrong thing or the right thing for the wrong reasons.
You must be the part of the "professional left."
How much are you paid to carp and post crap about Obama?
Be gone, you won't be missed!
:thumbsdown:

[Freddie Stubbs]

109. How has President Obama painted himself into a corner?

[vaberella]

114. Be honest. No they hadn't. Obama clearly said several people are qualified.

If he didn't take her, you'd call him weak. Now that he does take her, you're saying he's painted himself into a corner. Please. It would hardly do any political damage considering most people don't even know who Elizabeth Warren is, unless you watch Rachel Maddow.

[Cal33]

Some great news for a change - finally!

[Cal33]

129. Some great news for a change - finally!

[Cal33]

130. Some great news for a change - finally!

[Jackpine Radical]

87. As for me, I will gladly praise Obama for this one

when it happens.

[Yavin4]

53. Let's Not Give Obama Credit For Anything Right

Geesh.

[Teaser]

104. It must be nice

to be able to insure one's self-esteem with no-lose scenarios.

[vaberella]

113. What is your deal?

I used to think you were just pessimistic with valid point. But now you're just sounding antagonistic and condescending with no validity. ~sigh~

[Cleita]

4. Yahoo!

Thanks to Bernie Sanders too, who went on the media and everyone that would have him, to plead her case.

:bounce::fistbump::party::toast:

[Go2Peace]

5. Not only a good choice but wise politically

Let's see the GOP try to shut down the agency created to watch Wal-Street. That does not seem like a wise thing to fight.

[demi moore]

106. wise? lol

that's why they will do it. she might protect vulnerable people. they will not like that one bit.

[applegrove]

7. Woohoo!

:woohoo:

[mmonk]

9. Excellent. This is great news.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Now that Timmy Geithner's had weeks to staff the thing

After he was named acting head.

If this is true, I hope Warren starts by cleaning the place out and staffing it with Democrats.

[Pirate Smile]

11. Oh, for god's sake, you can enjoy it for a minute before going back to cynically saying why it

isn't good enough and wont matter.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. If it happens, it will definitely be way better

that whatever Goldman-Sachs alumnus Geithner and Summers had in mind.

It will matter as long as she gets to staff the thing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Here's how it will work

1) Oh sure, Obama nominated her, but he had to. I've ALWAYS said that he HAD to nominate her, since they've painted themselves into a corner. But they DON'T WANT her, so...
2) Will he use the bully pulpit to help her get confirmed? What, there's opposition to her confirmation? We ALWAYS said that they would offer her up as a politically EXPEDIENT act, all the while working against her in SHADY BACKROOM DEALS...
3) So she was confirmed by some lukewarm vote. Big deal. Timmy has already stocked the agency against her. That's why they needed three weeks after the passage of the law to stall and put Timmy in there! She'll be completely handcuffed by the corporatist stocking of the agency with Geithner's people!

It will never end. You cannot reason with fanatics.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Obama's had weeks to fill the spot

And he's known for months that he'd need to fill this post. Why do you think he appointed Geithner first to start staffing it?

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Whole weeks! Oh my goodness!

Listen, Manny. I don't have the same weirdo Geithner obsession you do, so if you're using the dreaded name as some boogeyman trump, I suggest you play that game with your little friends, cuz I ain't buying. From my perspective, the Secretary of the Treasury is a perfectly reasonable transition coordinator for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It actually takes awhile to get big federal agencies up and running, and I'm glad that professional civil servants and other committed people in Treasury (y'know...people who actually do shit other than gripe incessantly on the intertubes) are being moved to staff the new agency. You apparently see the transition period as some extended shenanigans having to do with God knows what, but rest assured that not everyone on this board shares your feelings. I, for one, don't consider a single month between the passage of the law and the naming of a nominee for agency head to be out of sorts, nor do I find the tasking of transition for what is essentially a financial watchdog agency to the SecTreas to be some devious plot (who would you put in, the head of Housing and Urban Development?). So rant all you please. I stopped listening to your odd imaginings long ago.

[4lbs]

23. Yeah, people are complaining about a whole month between passing Congress and nomination.

Remember the DHS? The Department of Homeland Security?

That thing was created in November 25, 2002.

The first DHS Secretary, Tom Ridge, wasn't named until January 24, 2003.

That's TWO MONTHs.

Furthermore, the agency's major components weren't fully up and running until March 1, 2003.

So, it took about 4 months after it was first ok'ed by Congress and funded, before it was functional.

Thus, I don't expect this CFPB agency to be fully functional until maybe November.

[sce56]

108. Good up and running just after the October Crash.

Most of the big falls have been in October!
"Black Tuesday", October 29, 1929,

[Yavin4]

54. I'm Going to Repeat Your Advice Back To You

"It will never end. You cannot reason with fanatics."

[Demeter]

60. Please don't listen

The Wall Street economy is counting on mass stupidity.

[dionysus]

122. !!!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Freddie Stubbs]

144. Whoever is appointed, they will report to Geithner

[Pirate Smile]

15. Oh, I know. I'm watching the arguments on Twitter re he should have just appointed her and stiffed

the Senate re confirmation.

I think a fight to confirm her is just what the WH and Dems want to have be the fight going into the election. She will fight for consumer's rights against Wall Street & Big Business and the Republicans, as the handmaidens of Wall Street & Big Business, are trying to stop her. Democrats are fighting for the People. Republicans are fighting for Wall Street & the Banks. The Republicans did the same thing on Wall Street Reform, on reforming the Student Loan program, on Health Insurance Reform, etc.

It fits the narrative we want to push leading up to the election.

Are Republicans going to filibuster the Consumer's watchdog? Bring.It.On.

[laughingliberal]

31. It would be a very good idea for the President and Democrats to be seen on the side of consumers...

in the lead up to the election while people watch the Republicans defend the banksters. :)

[JDPriestly]

18. I'm not worried. She has that most important quality: integrity.

She will manage the folks that Geithner put in there. When given half a chance, integrity has a way of succeeding when least expected.

[Scuba]

43. +1

[SunsetDreams]

19. Yep

You said it.

[depakid]

21. Why it will never end is that you can't reason with those who refuse to look at the record

No matter how many times these things occur, some "true Obama believer" will come out and say- oh, but he really meant to do x -he really really wanted to- but there was Y and so he couldn't (or couldn't even try)..

Never fails with some types.

There's always some excuse.

or as with Dawn Johnsen, Sheila Sherrod or Van Jones, in the end, there isn't.

In this case, at this juncture- there wasn't any choice that didn't invite political disaster.

Krugman (unlike some others seems rather kind about it when he naotes:

"Mr. Obama's attempts to avoid confrontation have been counterproductive. His opponents remain filled with a passionate intensity, while his supporters, having received no respect, lack all conviction. And in a midterm election, where turnout is crucial, the 'enthusiasm gap' between Republicans and Democrats could spell catastrophe for the Obama agenda."

"Which brings me back to Ms. Warren... protecting consumers, ensuring that they aren't the victims of predatory financial practices, is something voters can relate to. And choosing a high-profile consumer advocate to lead the agency providing that protection -- someone whose scholarship and advocacy were largely responsible for the agency's creation -- is the natural move, both substantively and politically. Meanwhile, the alternative -- disappointing supporters yet again by choosing some little-known technocrat -- seems like an obvious error."

[scheming daemons]

28. A_M got it right... even when Obama does what you want, you find a way to spin it as a negative

He has you pegged.

Fanatic.

[depakid]

29. Fact is that politics sometimes forces politicians and advisors' hands-

if you go back and review my posts on the matter (as well as review other informed people's takes over the past 8 weeks or so) you'll find that they're very consistent on the point.

Hardly the stuff of fanatics (or cultists) - but rather, astute and experienced assessments of the political landscape and election year dynamics.

That anyone would attempt to use these assessments as "proof" (or projection?) is, indeed, quite telling in and of itself.

[scheming daemons]

33. So... all along, Obama has ignored what is "good politics".... until now

If "politics" could force Obama to do something he doesn't want to do... then he'd publicly be for marriage equality, the HCR law would have a public option, and we'd be on our way out of Afghanistan.


As you continually point out, Obama has put his "thumb in the eye" of the left all along.


But now... you're going to claim that he's appointing Warren because "politics is forcing him"??



Every other action he's taken you guys have chalked up to him "ignoring the left".

But now.... on this issue... you're saying he's doing the OPPOSITE of ignoring the left?




It's funny how it never crossed your mind that Obama might be doing this because he thinks she's the best person for the job. He did, after all, hire her in the first place.

That is "quite telling in and of itself".

[depakid]

42. Gotta come back and throw a bone or two

if not "red meat" sooner or later- even if later might be too late for retards in the constituencies to ever believe a word a leader says anymore

That's politics- and it's the risk that "never stood up and fought for anything controversial" type politicians take..

Go along to get along- until you can't.

[scheming daemons]

46. incredibly lame response

i've come to the conclusion that it will literally cause you physical pain to give the president unqualified credit for any action he might take.

Your responses in this thread have rendered you completely transparent.

You are no better than the folks you belittle as Obama cheerleaders. In fact, you're their mirror image.

Good day, depakid.

[Common Sense Party]

123. Hey, Rahm, nice use of the slur "retards"!

Disgusting and offensive.

[vaberella]

134. Your recent posts have lost any credibility for me, and this is one of them.

You basically said he was forced to do this, and I don't know what that means. I don't know what Sheila Sherrod, Van Jones or Dawn Johnson have to do with this----because each person has a different situation and involvement and secondly, you're comparing apples in oranges to throw in a criticism---a senseless one.

[impik]

26. Not to forget: WE FORCED HIM TO DO SO. HE WAS GOING TO SELL US AGAIN!!!

[zipplewrath]

111. Ha.

Well, I can actually see some of that. And I do get your point.

It is just a tad interesting that this comes out, not the actual appointment mind you, but a "leak" of the appointment, at the same time that Dodd is announcing that suddenly it's not the GOP that makes her unconfirmable, but that HE doesn't think she's qualified for the job.

These kinds of things to produce cynicism donchaknow.

I am a tad concerned that people are going to suffer "anticipointment" with her. She knows what she's up against and may take a similar tack that Holder has over at Justice. Nothing loud, and having to back off frequently, even if not giving up.

[impik]

25. Naaa, they can't. Bitterness is their source of life

[depakid]

32. We're not worthy!

[JTFrog]

35. You finally posted something I agree with. n/t

[depakid]

40. Outstanding!

Props to someone who at least has the guts to admit it.

Separates some from the other side of the aisle- as we saw here a few short years ago:

[JTFrog]

58. Too bad some don't have the guts to admit

that they'll never have a positive word to say about our current Democratic administration.

I thought the tea-publicans had that side of the aisle covered already. :shrug:

[Beetwasher]

56. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

:rofl:

[Demeter]

59. I Rec Your Post!

That's exactly why it's taking so long to make the appointment--the idiots in charge thought they could slow her up for a few months....maybe even until 2012.

I wish them all the comforts of spending eternity with Dick Cheney.

[AtomicKitten]

16. Great news.

thanks for posting this

K&R

[4lbs]

20. That can't be true. Several posters here on DU were so freaking sure that President Obama wouldn't

do this, and they of course, are never wrong about anything.

:sarcasm:

[no limit]

51. And you know what those cynical posters were told by Obama apologists?

That Elizabeth Warren is not experianced enough.

So don't act like "your side" is all high and mighty. The fact is there are far too many people that are willing to apologize for this president no matter what he does. Just there are people on "my side" that will bitch at anything he does, as you saw above.

[dave29]

117. Thanks for the broad brush

never said any such thing regardless of sides. I support the Pres and defend him, that does not mean I am an apologist, either.

[grantcart]

83. Its impossible. They are just tricking us.

[POAS]

139. Your right, I hadn't thought about the

possibility of a double secret double agent who will be controlled by the banksters and the illiterati. Why everything she does will have to be scrutinized carefully but only by those with the best tinfoil hats.

By the gods GC, you've stumbled onto something horrible. Stay away from small airplanes. Come to think of it stay away from big airplanes also.

[POAS]

138. Your wrong about that

Ask and you'll be told that they were wrong......to have supported Obama!

As you say....:sarcasm:

[scheming daemons]

22. There are about 30 cynical, doom-and-gloom posters that will have to eat crow

Several in this thread already.

[4lbs]

24. I doubt they will. They'll conveniently forget, or give some sort of half-hearted compliment with a

huge backhand attached.

Something like, "yay! At least he didn't have his head up his butt on this one!"

See? A half-hearted compliment, with a huge backhanded comment attached.

[impik]

27. You're naive, my friend :)

They will find something wrong with it, you can be sure.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Uzybone]

77. are you kidding? On to the next nontroversy

its like a Crusade, and it will only end with a republican president.

[laughingliberal]

30. Very happy to hear this! I might need to get my pom poms off the shelf!! K & R. nt

[vaberella]

39. Keep them there--I'm sure you'll find something you don't agree with.

It's better to be safe than sorry.

[laughingliberal]

67. A completely wrong assessment of my attitude. I actively look for reasons to be happy with the...

President. I don't have a need to agree 100% with him, just a need to see some movement in the direction I feel we should go.

For instance, I posted several stories when the President was banging on Congress about not cutting spending right now. Didn't get much attention here, I must say, but I saw it as a positive move.

[30rock]

36. Where are the Chris Dodd apologists now?

Credit to the liberal blogosphere and Obama for listening to us instead of bank-lobbyist-to-be Dodd.

[Jennicut]

55. There are no apologies for Dodd. He is my Senator and it was beyond time for him to retire.

He did some very good things (helping to get the Family and Marriage Leave Act passed) and some not so good things. I want Elizabeth Warren to be nominated and Dodd was way too worried about a fight with Rethugs. A fight would be good for Dems.

[vaberella]

38. I guess this could be one of the lacking reforms by the White House.

Oh wait, I'll wait until the Repubs block her nomination---and many on DU will say Obama didn't fight for her.

[Chan790]

96. I'll wait for it to happen thanks...

but in that moment, it might or not be an accurate assessment. President Obama has shown a reticence to get his hands dirty and engage in some trench warfare. Whether he's technically-capable of it isn't really up to debate, he is and showed it early on and in the election. Why he isn't engaging in it is the question: Is he saving ammo for a big fight or does he lack the fortitude for warfare now having seen it?

There is certainly some real value in "keeping the powder dry" but that's only a useful strategy if you plan and intend to use that firepower eventually. Perhaps this is that time? There were bigger fights in the past I think he should have done less compromising on and more arm-twisting and engaged in some partisan firefight because those were more important issues. Strategically though, this might be the right fight to pick. If he can paint Republicans as decisively on the wrong side and fighting against the American people going into November, it becomes possible we may turn the tide and hand Republicans a crushing defeat (or minimally a stalemate) insuring 2 more years to further the President's agenda and put us in a very strong position going into 2012.

If he continues to sit of a mountain of gunpowder and never picks that fight before leaving office, he will have wasted a lot of political capital as well as capacity to implement the agenda he laid out in his campaign.

[laughingliberal]

102. I'm guessing IF he doesn't fight for her, we'll say that. IF he does & she's blocked by the GOP,...

we'll hammer them from here to hell & slam them as pro-Wall Street, anti-consumer whores.

[w4rma]

41. Good news! (nt)

[DailyGrind51]

44. Make it a recess appointment and ignore the opposition!

That's what Bush did!

[disillusioned73]

45. Good news, I hope it's true...

:headbang:

[saltpoint]

47. EW is a great choice.

[snot]

48. K&R'd

[no limit]

49. This was my line in the sand for the Obama admin, if true I have some of my hope back

some...but some is a hell lot better than the none I have right now.

[denimgirly]

50. REALLY? And here i was BASHING the WH for being Weak!! Here is hoping this is TRUE!!!

I am still thinking the WH doesnt have the guts to pick her but here is hoping i am wrong...I am crossing my fingers....Please for gods sakes let their be at least one respectable progressive decision get through.

[Demeter]

57. I'll Believe It When I See It

I've been burned before.

[killbotfactory]

61. Fill in the blank

The nomination of Elizabeth Warren is ____ and is therefor a betrayal of all things progressive.
1. a bone thrown to the progressive wing of the party to provide cover for a laundry list of ongoing failures and abuses
2. meaningless because the financial reform bill didn't do anything
3. great, but Geithner de-fanged the agency somehow for some reason
4. all of the above

[Iwillnevergiveup]

62. Fabulosa!

Hopefully this will hurry Geitner out the exit door.

K&R

[Sebastian Doyle]

63. The only way this is going to work

is if Warren has actual control over the "agency" and cannot be overruled by Timmy the Elf or the "Federal" Reserve.

[DevonRex]

65. Another CYA talking point. nt

[notesdev]

66. I'll believe it when I see it

a trial balloon third-party say-so isn't a very reliable source.

Even if they do nominate her for something, I don't expect that something to give her any more actual power than she has now.

They CAN'T let Warren have power or the game is up. She is too honest and too many have too much at risk to allow that.

[felix_numinous]

68. Good news nt

[FlyByNight]

69. Good...

...but I'll believe it when I see it.

:thumbsup:

[jenmito]

70. K&R! I see the constant critics are finding ways to NOT give Obama credit even though they were

claiming he wouldn't do it. :eyes:

[Parker CA]

71. Oh that'd be terrific! Hoping they follow through with this. nt

[NoSheep]

72. Hell FUCKING yeah!

[bluethruandthru]

73. This is Great News!! n/t

[Blue Owl]

74. Sounds good and non-Bu$hlike

n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

75. If true, this is hugh. And maybe Gibbs’ remarks were 11th dimension chess

(Just kidding about that second thing.)

[CitizenLeft]

76. AWESOME!

thank you! :applause:

[earth mom]

78. I'll believe it when I see it. nt

[FrenchieCat]

79. This will not be good enough, cause nothing ever is.

[ibegurpard]

95. such negativity

i mean really...

[Mithreal]

103. Holy shite, no doubt. Pre-emption, my ass. Doth protest too much.

That'll win em over sumthin special.

[vaberella]

133. FrenchieCat speaks from experience and is speaking of the naysayers who are on this thread.

She is a big supporter of President Obama, and the constant barrage that Obama is a corporatist and right wing hack---as seen on this site is frustrating. Her commentary is pure sarcasm built on frustration. And if you look higher up in the thread you'll see more of it.

[Lifelong Protester]

80. If that happens, I will be pleased as punch (an old Humphrey saying)

it would be a good start in really ramping up this administration to do the right thing(s)

[abelenkpe]

81. sweet! nt.

[ccharles000]

82. k/r

[grantcart]

84. Great news

[Metta]

85. She's a reputable source; they're not. It ain't on the table until it's on the table.

Fool me once ....

[Better Believe It]

86. And if she doesn't get 60 votes (only 51 are necessary) how quickly will the White House dump her

and withdraw the nomination?

We shall soon find out.

[Gold Metal Flake]

88. Yup.

I will celebrate when she is sworn in.

[grantcart]

107. If it is next week it means its a recess appointment

[Freddie Stubbs]

142. He may not want to do a recess appointment with such a high profile position, especially if

the appointment will expire at the end of this Congress (January 3, 2011).

[Arkana]

89. Really!

Excellent news--if this isn't a sign that pressure from the base actually does work I don't know what is.

[SILVER__FOX52]

90. yeaaaaaaaaaaaahhh !!!

[Fire1]

91. YAY!!! Three cheers!! Outfuckinstandin!!! So glad to hear it. n/t

[DesertFlower]

92. great news. nt

[saltpoint]

93. 'Have posted earlier that I thought EW is a terrific choice

for this job, but I think so even more now.

Recommended.

[pam4water]

97. Cheers!

[pa28]

98. Could be the silver lining in the Gibbs fiasco.

As a politician, Barack Obama certainly knows the importance of mending fences around election time. Better than Robert Gibbs anyway!

I doubted this story yesterday but his gaffe may have just cemented the nomination of Warren.

[amandabeech]

99. Will she have to take a drug test? N/T

[NYC_SKP]

100. kick (nt)

[hollowdweller]

101. Warren appointment, Gates proposed defense cuts

Glad to see them doing a few things to get my vote.

Now if we could see some labor friendly initiatives, and Obama squash the idea of cutting Social Security you'd see a lot of liberals lining up behind him.

[mzmolly]

105. Fabulous!

:toast:

[flpoljunkie]

110. Warren met with bank lobbyists last week. Will her appoint her before he heads off to the Vineyard?

Warren sits down with big bank lobbyists
By Brady Dennis

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 18, 2010; A11

Elizabeth Warren, a top candidate to lead the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, met quietly last week with some of her sharpest critics: big bank lobbyists.

Before the Harvard law professor visited the White House on Thursday to talk with Obama advisers about the consumer bureau job, she spent an hour just down Pennsylvania Avenue at the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents the nation's largest financial firms, said people familiar with the meeting.

Warren and Roundtable President Steve Bartlett spoke at length in his office about the role of the new regulatory agency, which -- despite the group's objections -- was included in the far-reaching financial legislation signed into law by President Obama last month.

Meeting with an industry trade group isn't out of the ordinary for Warren. During her regular trips to Washington in her role as watchdog over the government's $700 billion bailout program over the past year and a half, Warren has sought to build relationships with lawmakers and interest groups who have at time been wary of her fiery rhetoric.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081705674.html

[Pirate Smile]

116. I'm thinking they may want to hold off and do it after he gets back from vacation.

We are right in the middle of end-of-summer vacations and crazy back to school time.

I bet they wait a little bit. Seems like a good kick-off to the campaign season ala "who is on main street's side vs who is on wall street's side".

[flpoljunkie]

118. As long as Obama nominates Elizabeth Warren, I am willing to wait.

Elizabeth is the best person for the job. Period.

[vaberella]

112. I was told that Obama would not do it. n/t

[otohara]

119. Fucking Awesome

throwing the liberals a bone ... a big bone - thank you POTUS Obama

[JNelson6563]

124. Oh snap! Bitches!

Great news!

Julie--pointing and laughing at the haterz

[and-justice-for-all]

125. I hope she gets the job!!! Wall Street will be shitting themselves!!

[backscatter712]

126. EXCELLENT!!! n/t

[Kingofalldems]

127. Some freeper will not be liking this one

He'll have to double up on anti-Dem posts.-------->:shrug:

[denimgirly]

128. Wow since when did the WH gain balls...I really hope this is true!!

Lets hope they dont buckle...I am starting to really like election seasons...the time when democrats start acting progressive...so Liz might have been lucky to be in the time period cuz if it were to be after mid-terms i doubt she would have had a chance. Crossing my fingers.

[cottonseed]

131. She'll be an enemy of DU soon.

Poor Elizabeth.

[AlinPA]

132. Great, but this is taking too long.

[vaberella]

135. That's what good vetting is about. Time. n/t

[seattleblue]

141. This has been going on for months.

It doesn't take that long to "vet" someone.

[marlakay]

137. I hope its true

she is one of the very few honest ones left.

[flpoljunkie]

140. Bill Burton told WH press gaggle yesterday the nomination for head of CFPB won't be any time soon.

This makes me uneasy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

143. Did he indicate why there would be a delay?

[DrSteveB]

145. kick nt

[Umbral]

146. Oh you naughty, naughty boy. nt