Discussion for article #228739
“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”
'Nuff said.
23 Likes
The headline could have just as easily said “Warren praises Obama”, with the criticism buried just like the praise was.
But no. The inclusion of Warren “hitting” Obama, with the hyped picture, the mention of Wall St., and the indirect mention of Larry Summers was too easy to pass up by TPM, so expect an infestation of trolling. But hey! Clicks, clicks, clicks!!!
Edited for grammar.
21 Likes
So, keeping the country out of another Great Depression didn’t help any families, working people or young people – that’s awfully shortsighted.
13 Likes
his economic team picked Wall Street
Of course they did. The .001 percent is all that mattered to them.
2 Likes
Senator Warren contradicted herself. How could President Obama have “protected” Wall Street, yet also allowed for the CFPB, which placed stricter regulations on Wall Street?
7 Likes
I like Senator Warren a lot, but you don’t shit all over the leader of your party 3 weeks before a crucial election where party enthusiasm is central to turnout. wtf!?!
18 Likes
Obama’s economic team decided that it really wouldn’t be a good idea to let the banking and financial system collapse. He no more “sided with the banks” than FDR did, when FDR saved the banks, as well. I’ve followed Warren since she was teaching at UPenn law school and never much liked her. Oh, she’s smart enough, but she’s an ingrate and has a touch of the demagogue about her.
5 Likes
Tell us Warren, what would you have done differently to avoid an even greater financial crisis?
6 Likes
Warren is full of crap…some liberals don’t understand…certainly
Warren wants to demagoue…a Liberal Ted Cruz?
1 Like
She’s a slightly left of center Democrat who was a Republican 20 years ago.
I like her.
13 Likes
Actually, I am OK with Warren’s remarks, and, just like the recent coverage of Hillary’s reaction to Obama’s “don’t do stupid stuff,” it actually reveals a more nuanced thought process than the usual all-or-nothing “XXX slams Obama” type click-bait.
This reminds me of the recent column Paul Krugman wrote in the latest issue of Rolling Stone.
Krugman, who since 2009 has criticized Obama from the left as too timid with bankers and the stimulus, came out and defended Obama’s overall record.
While it was certainly no lovefest and included criticisms of various policy decisions, he described Obama’s term as “consequential.”
12 Likes
I like her too, but as a previous poster said, shitting on your party leader right before an election doesn’t make any sense.
11 Likes
Bad framing, Warren!
Major banksters should be in jail, agreed. But this is no time to attack Obama!
Walk this brain fart back and frame it more like:
“Republicans in Congress PREVENTED banksters from going to jail. Obama would’ve if he could’ve, blah, blah…and I will…”
Rookie mistake.
2 Likes
Yes, and it’s interesting how many of today’s Democrats lionize FDR and compare Obama unfavorably to him, when, if you saw the recent PBS series on the Roosevelts, it is apparent that FDR needed to continually compromise with his opponents to get things done – despite the fact that he had up to 300 fellow Democrats in the House and up to 72 Democrats in the Senate, and a much stronger and activist labor movement nationally that demanded immediate action.
Also, when some liberals demanded that some failed banks be nationalized in 2009, the WH and Treasury argued that existing laws did not make a strong enough case for any federal authority to wind them down. Rather than court a constitutional cruisis, the WH instead went ahead to push for banking reform, which, although not as strong as some might wish, does now grant the federal government more powers to intervene in too big to fail instances.
12 Likes
And that supermajority consisted of the racist southern Democrats, yet “progressives” today bitch about Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and potentially Alison Lundergan-Grimes because they have to lean slightly right wing because they represent red states.
5 Likes
Read the whole interview. This snippet is sexy and generates clicks, but it mischaracterizes the tenor of the interview. She makes strong arguments in favor of supporting the Democratic party despite its shortcomings.
12 Likes
Which is par for the course for this professional left blog.
2 Likes
It makes sense if you consider that maybe she only cares about her future aspirations. Makes perfect sense then. No less despicable.
Cory Booker 2012 redux.
I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it. The same Democrats that lionize FDR in order to criticize Obama, are the same people that years from now will be lionizing Obama in order to criticize future presidents. It’s just the nature of history and the conflict between the past and present tenses.
I’m still having arguments with well-meaning but uninformed liberal activists that wonder why Obama couldn’t be more like LBJ in getting universal health care passed. I remind them that LBJ’s momentous healthcare legislation (medicare/medicaid) was itself a compromise because he couldn’t get universal healthcare passed. (Also, LBJ started the Vietnam war and FDR authorized internment camps… Like all presidents they did embarrassing things I disagree with, but that doesn’t discount what they actually achieved, no matter what present day pessimists and atavists may argue.)
9 Likes