patrick.net

From everything I've seen on Elizabeth Warren, she seems like a very intelligent and knowledgeable person. And she actually cares about making the world a better place. That's a very rare combination for someone running for office. Granted, she's entering politics very late in life, but perhaps that's why she's trustworthy.

And as a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, she's way more qualified to be president -- I know she's only running for Senate right now, but 2016... -- than any of the current Republican nominees.

That said, I don't have a lot of hope in the Consumer Finance Protection Agency. It seems to be a largely defanged agency and the banks are still attacking it. Had Warren been the head of this agency, I'd have a bit more hope, but it still needed real power to restructure our financial system.

As for your complaint about her ad being hypocritical, I cannot comment since I haven't seen the ad. Can you post a video link?

If your talking about the ad on her homepage then I say, no, there is nothing hypocritical about that ad.

The ad running 1:35 seems quite reasonable. Here are some things I liked about it.

1. It is not an attack ad.
2. It states why she is running.
3. Her reasons for running are consistent with her behavior.
4. The ad states several general problems she intends to solve.

The only fault in the ad is that although it establishes which problems she intends to address, it does not state what her solutions are or how she will approach the problems. Perhaps that's asking too much though for a one and a half minute ad.

The specific problems she list are:
1. The middle class is being destroyed.
2. Washington is rigged for big corporations with armies of lobbyists.
3. College students are being burdened with too much debt-ridden.
4. Seniors are being forced into poverty.

I have to agree with her analysis of the problems. I also have to agree that the special interests that have opposed her in the past will do anything to tear down her campaign.

In any case, Warren is being sincere in that she believes the problems she stated are the ones that matter, and that she will attempt to solve those problems. In the past she has talked about the cause and effects of those problems.

In conclusion, I don't see your problem with this ad.

Because she cannot say she fought big banks at the same time as creating an agency for them.

If she wants "power to the people" then why did she give more power to the Fed of all things? Dan8267 says

From everything I've seen on Elizabeth Warren, she seems like a very intelligent and knowledgeable person. And she actually cares about making the world a better place. That's a very rare combination for someone running for office. Granted, she's entering politics very late in life, but perhaps that's why she's trustworthy.

And as a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, she's way more qualified to be president -- I know she's only running for Senate right now, but 2016... -- than any of the current Republican nominees.

That said, I don't have a lot of hope in the Consumer Finance Protection Agency. It seems to be a largely defanged agency and the banks are still attacking it. Had Warren been the head of this agency, I'd have a bit more hope, but it still needed real power to restructure our financial system.

Banks aren't exactly attacking it since they end up appointing some of the same people to actually might run the thing!

Simply being a professor at Harvard Law does not mean someone is qualified for office. She hasn't specifically done anything for anyone. She has not held office. Usually on the right and left a president has some experience first. Usually in the form of a governor, vice president and most recently senate. She's not really qualified to be president. Intelligence has nothing to do with serving office. President Carter supposedly had a sky high IQ but that didn't exactly help him in office.

Likewise with Obama studying law doesn't exactly help being in office either. He should have aimed towards being on the supreme court rather than the executive branch.

Part of being a senator means representing the state relative to the federal government. Recently due to redistricting Mass lost a seat in the house meaning that the senate relative to mass holds more importance. Others running against her that dropped out actually DID do things in the communities to help people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Khazei He founded City Year more than 20 years ago.. Warren we know is going to solicit massive amounts of funds from across the country. In the debate the other day it was argued that it should not be the Koch Bros vs Soros (which it might end up being if warren wins)

It is hard to argue that someone that spent time in DC has done anything to help on a state level... We had tornados in western mass..she didn't say anything, we had massive snowfall in the prior winter..again nothing. She could end up becoming another Coakley who said why should she be shaking hands with people in the cold or going to baseball games...um it's called campaigning.

Also saying that "No one ever got rich on their own" is a insult to anyone in the arts that has made a name for themselves. You aren't forced to listen to music, watch movies etc. Simple economics shows that a medium of exchange has to be established for anything of value to be exchanged. She's not making that much sense.

mdovell says

I understand she makes speeches that make some on the left happy and she has this consumer protection agency that she started.

That She had to abandon, because she uncovered shady practices from both sides of the isle. She knows enough to arrest most of Congress and the Senate, and probably Obama as well. She couldn't fit them in the patty wagon with Linquist, G.W. Bush, Rove, and Cheney. So they offered her a Kennedy seat.

She WAS the last person capable of making a difference since Robert Kennedy. How Ironic she's taking Ted's seat as a hush consolation prize.

But she's not really making a difference when she's expanding the role and the power of the Fed. How can anyone be expected to be accountable when no one is elected, records are closed door, there is no recall process.

Since it was created MF Global collapsed and the CEO (Corsine) stated he doesn't know what happened to the money.
Isn't that why Sorbanes Oxley passed years ago?

So the protection agency failed...

She worked to get the consumer agency created, but then the Dems backed down and turned it over to the banking industry, which turned it into a toothless tiger.

The historical revisionism here is amazing. It's not like the creation of the CFPB is some obscure event that happened centuries ago.