Katrina vandenHeuvel of The Nation tweets:
I hope she’s right. It’s the right fight at the right time.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
20 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Bob Dylan – Idiot Wind (1976)
Uploaded by Pitoucat. – Watch more music videos, in HD!
I am not a politician but it seems to me that the full court press given to Warren’s potential nomination by the progressive blogosphere has served to make this into a lose lose proposition for the WH. If he nominates her (as I think he should on purely meritorious grounds), the media (along with the progressive blogosphere) will say that he is simply kowtowing to his liberal base; if he doesn’t nominate her, liberals across the country will feel betrayed once again. I can’t recall ever when a President was given so little breathing room to make a goddam decision. A country of 300 million appears to have more than double that number of personal agendas – of course the vast majority are going to get sidelined.
The last line of Katrina’s tweet annoys me too – it’s there to signal clearly that absent the liberal “pressure” Obama would have been cowardly and not nominated her – is that correct? How does she know this? In fact, signs have pointed to the WH wanting to nominate her, i.e. Gibbs insisting that she wasn’t a controversial pick and that she was definitely confirmable. Perhaps the WH just wanted to wait until the liberal blogosphere dialled down the rhetoric on Warren?
If the nomination happens, hopefully it will engage the base but I bet the majority of money in my pocket that some commentators will still sing the mantra of “he’s only nominating her for political reasons, he’s going to let her nomination twist in the wind or he won’t fight for her” depressing the base even further.
It’s a signal he needs to give now, and it’s the right candidate to do it with. There is no downside. The fight is what they want.
I do appreciate that he needs to give that signal – I think my issue is with why he needs to give that signal – it all seems like cry baby stuff to me or like having to prove your love to someone you’ve been with for 15 years through thick and thin by buying a crappy box of chocolates. Maybe I’m just not romantic enough…
This is different.
Asking the president to make some econ professor the Treasury Secretary instead of someone with established relationships on Wall Street is unrealistic. That would fly in the face of 200 years of history and freak people out.
But asking the president to nominate the best qualified candidate is not asking for anything other than basic competence.
It’s one thing to ask for a hand-out. It’s another to ask for something that the president should do on the merits.
If he doesn’t pick Warren, it’s a deliberate slap at progressives and an indication that they won’t fight for us even when it’s the obvious thing to do. He needs to do it, not to salve our egos, but because we’re right on this one and everyone knows it.
OK – I hope that the “professional left” has his back in the fight, that’s all.
they’ll have his back on this and it will earn him some much needed good will. Gibbs spoke out because they’re frustrated. But that means they know they have a problem, which is good.
I imagine they have known about this for a while – they are certainly not stupid. I do feel like this is an argument between family where you find it hard to apologise since you know you’ve done nothing wrong (and in fact done several things right) but you also need to learn how to let go of your pride and say sorry just because it makes the other person feel better.
Did you say the same thing about the right when Dubya nominated Harriet Miers(even if Dubya did play everyone on the right)? Remember, all the wingnuts pitched a fit because, like Kagan, Miers had no paper trail giving a clue to how she might come down on the issues.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."homeruk and Oui, thanks for your back-to-back posts. Good points individually, and I think they illumine each other too. Here’s what I mean.
Obama’s always been an excellent political counterpuncher. Assuming he does nominate Warren, this could well be another example of that.
“But the point is that there’s been a fundamental lack of seriousness on the other side. We have spent the last 20 months governing. They spent the last 20 months politicking. Now we’ve got three months to go, and so we’ve decided, well, we can politick for three months. They’ve forgotten I know how to politick pretty good. (Laughter and applause.) And so I’m happy to make this argument — (applause) — I am happy to have this debate over the next several months about what their vision of the future is, because they don’t have one. They are trying to move us backwards, and we need to move us forward.”
So, to the extent voters end up paying attention to the (presumed) battle over Elizabeth Warren’s nomination, Obama’s in the position of 1) having nominated the best qualified person, who is 2) an excellent spokesperson, while 3) most voters think he’s already done enough for Wall Street and needs to do more for Main Street.
If the Republicans want to have that fight over the next 11 weeks, then bring it on. They’ll look like George Foreman in Round 8 of the Rumble in the Jungle.
I have no bone to pick with this choice but good God, is she the ONLY LIVING PERSON for this position?! According to Daily Kos and HuffPO, Obama would be committing something close to an act of treason if he didn’t nominate her.
My career is in the financial business and I do know of a few people of her caliber who would be just as qualified. It’s kind of scary when all this “Obama must do this or else” meme develops and takes on a life of it’s own that almost becomes irrational.
Agreed forus50, there are people who get almost irrational (or worse) about what is, after all, just one of hundreds of agency directors Obama (or any president) nominates.
Having said that, there are solid policy and political reasons for nominating Warren. Just because some on the left are irrational about her doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be nominated. On the other hand, the fact that a veteran pragmatic liberal like Barney Frank is so vocal in her support is, on balance (for a Democratic president), an added reason to nominate her.
On the third hand, if CEOs at Goldman Sachs, American Express or Bank of America decide to oppose her, or if Mitch McConnell and company decide to oppose her, then at this point in time, that’s probably a net plus Obama and the Democrats.
They’re fighting Wall Street to protect Main Street. They’re governing seriously while the Republicans are betraying their fundamental lack of seriousness. Assuming the administration thinks she’d do a good job, there aren’t many apparent good reasons not to nominate her.
Michael Barr.
Politically Obama has no choice but to nominate Warren. That was obvious from the beginning.
My career is in the financial business and I do know of a few people of her caliber who would be just as qualified.
Then name them!! And of those people, they won’t be tools of the banksters? When people were bitching that we should just let Obama re-nominate “B-52” Ben, I said Bernanke should be sent packing. And I stated at the time that my choice for a replacement would be Stiglitz. So lets hear it.
Well Maybe Gibbs should get on the same page of pumping up liberals. “The Professional Left” just call out Maddow and Olberman by name. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left?page=2#co
mments
Needed to be said. I’ve been saying it for a year or more. The progressive commentariat is not representative of “the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama.”
It sure brought a smile to my face. Politically wise? not so sure but sometimes you’ve got to say f**k politics, this is what I think.
Of course, the Professional Left(TM) is now outraged and claiming that Gibbs just shat on those “progressives who organised, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama”.
the traffic is all coming from perpetual outrage. It’s what built this thing called the blogosphere.
Even John Cole said Gibbs went too far. And Cole isn’t “unhinged” as you think most of the blogosphere is.