This in depth article of some 40 paragraphs has significant insight into the force for change Elizabeth Warren exerts on the Democratic party, not least of which is wanna be candidate Clinton. That is why the article is headlined as it is by the WaPo. But you delve nearly to the bottom to quote 2 critics - an anonymous sore loser supporter of Weiss and MOST AMAZINGLY, you include a nasty quote from that name-calling columnist Sorkin, well known for his friendship with Wall Street. If you want to attack Warren, have the guts & integrity to spell it out in your thread title. To do otherwise destroys your credibility on DU.
http://fair.org/blog/2014/11/26/nyt-columnists-faulty-attack-on-elizabeth-warrens-rage/
New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin has earned a reputation over the years for being friendly with the Wall Street giants he covers. If you read his bizarre rant against Senator Elizabeth Warren, it's not hard to see why.
Sorkin admits that Warren could have had a better argument if she wasn't so blinded by her rage:
"It is true that Mr. Weiss doesn't have a lot of experience in the regulatory arena, and at least part of the role he is nominated for involves carrying out the remaining parts of the Dodd/Frank overhaul law. It is also true that Mr. Weiss, if confirmed, will be the beneficiary of a policy at Lazard that vests his unvested shares–some $20 million in stock and deferred compensation–by taking a government job. That creates its own conflicts. Ms. Warren might be more persuasive if she focused on those issues."
Good point: Warren should have focused on his lack of regulatory experience. Oh wait, she did. Right there in the fourth paragraph: "
That raises the first issue. Weiss has spent most of his career working on international transactions–from 2001 to 2009 he lived and worked in Paris–and now he's being asked to run domestic finance at Treasury. Neither his background nor his professional experience makes him qualified to oversee consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the Treasury."
Free tip for Andrew Ross Sorkin: Don't say someone should have emphasized a point they in fact raised as "the first issue." It makes it seem like you didn't read the article you're critiquing.
In my opinion, these are the paragraphs you should have quoted, if your intent was to convey the meat of the article, as promised by the headline.
No small amount of speculation has centered on whether Warren herself will run for the White House in 2016. She insists that she will not. But her advisers and longtime allies say that she intends to keep the pressure on Clinton, to make sure the former secretary of state pays more than lip service to the issues that matter to Warren.
She is training her heat vision not on the Oval Office, but two doors down the hall on the Cabinet Room. Warren wants to make sure that Wall Street-aligned figures who have shaped the Clinton and Obama brand of economic policy for the past quarter-century, going back to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, are not the only ones at the oval mahogany table.
“The worst case for us is that [Clinton] gives a feisty speech now and then, but surrounds herself with the same old” economic gurus, said one longtime Warren ally, insisting upon anonymity to speak frankly.
= new reply since forum marked as read
