And what does the aside “who just happens to be female” mean? That somehow because she's a woman she was badgered more than a man would have been? Hmmm…

As for the substance, I think the point that the interviewer was trying to make was that that fixing larger problem Warren identifies – that the middle and lower class have gotten a raw deal since the 70s – isn't the goal of TARP and shouldn't be because the credit crisis is a much more immediate and serious concern. He was suggesting she should put her concerns about this other issue aside so that the work on the specific job this Commission is tasked with can proceed and there can be consensus and less partisan bickering. She disagreed. it sounds like a reasonable debate to have. I don't get the concerns.

Lastly, I agree completely with Elizabeth that political leaders and the media should talk to people more often who don't always echo the conventional wisdom. But that takes work and the media and political leaders are lazy, in general.

What kind of fool would think that was merely a theoretical hypothetical sort of problem, not a matter of life or death to us down here at the bottom of the food-chain?

Those of us here on the bottom who do all the actual work, who produce all the actual goods and provide all the actual services of society, those of us who are the vast majority of the population, on whose backs the ridiculously wealthy and their pundits and political hacks are riding? What would they do without us? What couldn't WE do without their parasitism?

What kind of fool could believe that even if it were a problem, it'd be a problem that could wait till the bankers are all feeling happy and safe and secure and wealthy again?

And Congress and 'Stay-the-course Obama are only ensuring the working-class &c's destruction with his on-going theft of the working poor class,&c's money and give-aways of the middle class &c's money to a bunch of thieving incompetent bankers who should've been thrown in the slammer long since.

I've been trying lovingly to bite my tongue in my posts lately, but this wilful blind stupidity in service of personal greed all across the alleged 'political spectrum' from Whacko Right to Dead Clintonista Center is truly provoking. I don't even have to imagine what Isaiah or Jeremiah or Amos would say because it's all written down in the Book.

May God have mercy on the United States. We're in jeopardy of judgment.

Right on, Ms Warren! You GO, girl!

1) What was the point of emphasizing the gender of Elizabeth Warren? Makes no sense. The writer of this post was temporarily blinded by her own agenda to actually deal with the issue at hand.

2) I actually thought the interviewer made a great point that Warren refused to acknowledge. As much as I agree with Warren on the over-arching issue (specifically the middle class), I think she failed to demonstrate why the majority of economists aren't focusing in on her argument… which was the point of the interviewer. She should have simply said, “because they are short-sighted and wrong not to consider the middle class and their vital role in the recovery of the economy.”

3) I think the writer of this post has allowed her own issues to cloud her judgment here. To suggest that Davidson's theories are akin to those “who drove the world economy off a cliff” is inflammatory and useless in pursuing positive dialogue.

4) Overall, I think these are the types of interviews needed… I especially liked that Davidson and Warren walked away still respecting each other.

One day Sojo puts up posts arguing for dialogue, common ground and an agreeable spirit. The next day, it is for principle, righteousness, and standing up against everyone else.

I'm the same way. But how do you know, and how do we know which to do? How do we keep from beating up other people because they choose to work for consensus on the day we think they ought to be standing up for principle, etc? How do we have integrity about this and not use our calls for principle or consensus as just another weapon to subtly attack those we disagree with? How do we keep our attention on the substance of the issues at hand?

In regards to public policy and administration of govenment, one way is to have journalists who will go toe-to-toe with public officials to articulate and defend their actions and views. I don't think the economic meltdown happened so much because there was a massive consensus arouind wrong thinking. I view it more as a massive self-delusion.

It was similar to the massive self-delusion around invading Iraq. There again the defenders simply argue there was a consensus view on WMD's that turned out to be wrong. But anyone who could add 2+2 could recognize a complex, long-standing conflict with many fronts and many motivations for taking action; and could recognize serious issues with the WMD argument. But in Washington and in the Press there was a willing self-delusion–or laziness.

I guess we enter self-delusion to cover up some other sin. We don't want to change our financial habits. We don't want to change our patterns of energy consumption. We don't want to give up our 'freedom' to trash our families and run off with another partner.

Are you arguing the administration of TARP, and the entire bail-out regieme, ought not be seriously scrutinized by journalists? I think the interviewer's technique could be improved but I don't think it crossed the line. Or was your point about this was a woman being interviewed implying that she is not strong enough or smart enough to be challenged?

And finally, what about simply addressing the substance of the issue. Is this TARP oversight board a politicized group carrying out their personal agendas–or a group delivering the best analysis and thinking to a more singular, emergency issue of a solvent banking system?

I believe that much of the current problem has been created, yes by greed and shortsighted thinking, but more significantly by an unwillingness of people on all sides to listen to opposing views and try to reach an accommodation.