Making assumptions here....

1.  Did Warren really want to head the agency?  GOP stalls the appointment, and she is filibustered next year when Dems have only 52 Senators.

2.  I wish she was a direct report to Obama, but I think there is real division in the administration over her role.

3.  Messy confirmation battles are not in Obama's DNA.  Plus with tax cuts, DADT, etc., there would have been no confmation hearings this year anyway.

Big problem with this line of argument is that Warren herself seems pretty happy with the position. She was under no obligation to take it, if she believed it was just window-dressing she could and would have refused. I somehow doubt she is party of the sinister conspiracy to shaft liberals.

A drawn-out confirmation battle may have made for great politics - but I doubt that would have been great for Democrats. Rather the media attention would not be focused on the 41 Republicans opposed to her, but on the 2-3 Dems who oppose her as well. The D's may have won in the end, but it would not have been pretty or a slam dunk.

And besides, this way she can get started on work right away, and be there for the next 2 years, which would not have been the case with a recess appt or lengthy confirmation battle.

 

Just because she thinks this is better than getting no position at all, it does not mean she would have chosen this over actually being appointed head of the agency with - and this is key - independent statutory power.  What really baffles me about this is that for Obama, let's face it, this is a political appointment. Don't get me wrong - I love Elizabeth Warren, and I think she will do a great job, and could do a great job as agency head - but I also suspect lots of other less well known people could have as well. The rationale for having her involved at such a high level has always mostly been about politics: because she's seen as the grassroots level as someone with credibility. Because she has what Geithner and Summers do not.  And the political impact is basically completely blunted by the manner that Obama went to do this. It's almost as if he's trying to damage himself and his party politically.

What do you expect her to say? "I'm taking this job because its better than nothing, but I really want a different job"? Just because she thinks this is better than getting no position at all, it does not mean she would have chosen this over actually being appointed head of the agency with - and this is key - independent statutory power. 

What really baffles me about this is that for Obama, let's face it, this is a political appointment. Don't get me wrong - I love Elizabeth Warren, and I think she will do a great job, and could do a great job as agency head - but I also suspect lots of other less well known people could have as well. The rationale for having her involved at such a high level has always mostly been about politics: because she's seen as the grassroots level as someone with credibility. Because she has what Geithner and Summers do not. And the political impact is basically completely blunted by the manner that Obama went to do this. It's almost as if he's trying to damage himself and his party politically.

 

There is a small group of these people but they are there and they are vocal.

Nothing Obama can do is good enough. 

If he does something that they like they pee and moan and assign sinister motives to it.  

These people need to start making their Nader signs now ... 2010 is just around the corner.   I am so sick of them.

Warren does not have a firm power since technically; she does not hold an agency/department/committee. However she has a direct “influence” being an assistant to the president and a special advisor. So hopefully, she’ll make good and sound decision which will benefit the country as a whole and not just for a significant few. We’ll see sooner or later on how she’ll handle this position.

We help Americans move to Asia for jobs and prosperity. Learn more at http://www.pathtoasia.com

I see this going both ways. She can either be effective in this position, but since this position is largely titular, she can get sidelined like Paul Vocker and only get trotted out as a stage prop on certain occasions.

But I agree with the overall sentiment of this diarist. The President should have proposed her to head the new agency, and if there was a hold on her, be it by Republicans or dodgy democrats like Chris Dodd, he should have sidestepped the Senate and appointed her during the recess. All this could have been accomplished long ago and would have sent a message to the base that the President stands with them. Instead, like everything else, we have yet another questionable half-measure.

that really makes me wonder whether he has it in him to win re-election in 2012.  I want him to win because he's the best one for the job, not simply because he's less crazy than the GOP candidate.

missing political opportunities to pick a fight with the republicans.  I agree with this, that he is not good at this, and I wish that he would do a better job at finding wedge issues to push them around and give votes a clearer view of the differences between democrats and republicans. 

However, I felt the same way in the primary with Hillary Clinton, that he constantly failed to get tough.  Eventually, it became clear that this is not part of his political skill set.  Whether we like it or not, we knew who we were getting when we voted for him, and I voted for him in both the primary and the general.