On Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow heaped praise on liberal Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren during an exclusive interview in which the MSNBC host deemed her a “political juggernaut.”
In introducing Warren, Maddow beamed at how she took on “one of the most powerful corporations in the country on the floor of the Senate...You get a populist fiery senator with a huge grassroots following, saying that banks are using their power and influence over Washington in ways that are bad for average people, Washington should put a stop to it -- you expect the banks will be mad about that.”
After detailing how several large banks have threatened to withhold campaign donations to Democratic politicians as a result of Warren’s anti-bank rhetoric, Maddow praised her “huge grassroots” following on the left:
The question is whether or not a political juggernaut, like Senator Elizabeth Warren and a Democratic Party that increasingly seems to believe in her message and her causes, whether they can win these fights, right, whether they can win these kinds of structural fights about unrigging the system as she describes it. And the question is how best to try to win those things. I mean, what is the best venue to fight those fights in?
After going into a lengthy promotional monologue for Warren, the MSNBC host finally introduced her guest by tossing her softball after softball question such as “Is the United States Senate a good place to work for somebody that wants to do the kinds of things you want to do?...Are you getting stuff done?”
Maddow continued to gush over Warren’s political future and explained why there is such “clamor” for her to run for president:
I think the reason there’s so much clamor around the prospect of you running for president and even though you don’t want to, is because I think people are worried about the Democrats’ chances of holding on to the presidency in 2016 and going Republican, the administration going Republican -- especially if the Congress stays Republican -- would put you in a position with almost no leverage at all.
Although Maddow insisted that she believes that Warren will not run for president in 2016 she fretted that the Democrats could be weakened if Hillary Clinton has no primary challenger:
You have -- this is the first time you have run for office. You came from a totally different background. But do you think that the Democrats are running a higher risk of giving the White House back to the Republicans if they don’t have a contested primary? If there isn’t a hard fight to see who the nominee is and if it ends up being Secretary Clinton essentially by acclimation?
After allowing Warren to go on lengthy explanations about her far-left agenda in the U.S. Senate, Maddow concluded the promotional interview by bemoaning that the Democratic Party was too similar to the GOP because of its ties to Wall Street:
Is the Democratic Party any better at that than the Republican Party, though? I mean, is the Democratic Party stronger on that? I mean, I know this is your cause. I know there are a handful of other economic populists in the Democratic Party who are high profile folks.
But I think about -- you know, Senator Schumer is ascending in the leadership in the Democrats, he’s received a ton of Wall Street money, he’s a New York senator, I get it, but he’s been not a critic. I look at Senator Clinton as the expected nominee. I don’t see any distance between her and Wall Street interests there. Is there any difference between Democrats and Republicans on that?
See relevant transcript below.
MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show
March 31, 2015
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: There’s a lot of talk lately about how Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect. There’s a lot of talk coming from Citigroup about how Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect. So, let me say this to anyone listening at Citi – I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect. It should have broken you into pieces.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RACHEL MADDOW: That was Senator Elizabeth Warren speaking on the Senate floor December 12th. Since then, if you have been wondering what happens when a sitting U.S. senator says something like that about one of the most powerful corporations in the country on the floor of the Senate, if you have been wondering what the equal and opposite reaction to something like that is -- well, Reuters reported that on Friday, quote, “Big Wall Street banks are so upset with Warren’s call for them to be broken up that some have discussed holding campaign donations to Senate Democrats.” Plural. Not just her.
And, you know, that is to be expected, right? You get a populist fiery senator with a huge grassroots following, saying that banks are using their power and influence over Washington in ways that are bad for average people, Washington should put a stop to it -- you expect the banks will be mad about that. So, you know, she acts, they react. But it’s not just a conversation between these two actors. It’s not like ping-pong or tennis where two people are hitting the proverbial ball back and forth. It turns out, it’s more like a nuclear reaction, where a careening atom like her starts stuff happening all over the place, because after Reuters reported this action by the banks, that they were going to punish all Democratic Senate candidates unless the Democratic Party figure out how to shut up Elizabeth Warren, she didn’t, you know, cower. She responded very aggressively.
She sent out a fund-raising e-mail saying, “The big banks have issued a threat. It is up to us to fight back.” She sent another response of similar order the next day. In so doing, she raised over $100,000. Bingo, not because she got somebody to give her $100,000 but because she found a lot of people to give her a very small amount of money and, you know what? It adds up. And the question is whether or not a political juggernaut, like Senator Elizabeth Warren and a Democratic Party that increasingly seems to believe in her message and her causes, whether they can win these fights, right, whether they can win these kinds of structural fights about unrigging the system as she describes it.
And the question is how best to try to win those things. I mean, what is the best venue to fight those fights in? Senator Elizabeth Warren’s job right now is working, honestly, as a very junior senator in the Republican-controlled institution of the United States Senate, and that’s part of why there’s a clamor to persuade to her run for president, which she says she will not do and I believe her. But what’s the next question. Joining us now for the interview is Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts. Her book “A Fighting Chance” is just out in paperback, with a new afterward that has a dramatic story in it, about a bank CEO. Senator Warren, thank you for being here.
WARREN: Thanks for having me. It’s good to be here.
MADDOW: Is the United States Senate a good place to work for somebody that wants to do the kinds of things you want to do?
WARREN: Yes.
MADDOW: Are you getting stuff done?
--
MADDOW: So, it’s -- in that, your leverage is through the oversight rule of the United States Senate. It’s also in part because the administration has which is a Democratic administration, has appointees, and some Senate confirmed and some not, running those agencies, who may be more amenable to hearing your arguments and toward accepting your oversight than they would if it were a Republican president. I think the reason there’s so much clamor around the prospect of you running for president and even though you don’t want to, is because I think people are worried about the Democrats’ chances of holding on to the presidency in 2016 and going Republican, the administration going Republican -- especially if the Congress stays Republican -- would put you in a position with almost no leverage at all.WARREN: Yes, you know, it is a scary thought to think about Republicans because they have made in charge all around, because they have made it so clear their vision of how to build a future. Their vision is: fire all the cops. Not the cops on Main Street, the cops on Wall Street, and they’re already leading the charge, some of them, to come back and say, let’s punch holes in Dodd-Frank. Can you imagine that? I mean, this soon after the financial crisis? There are real differences in what we stand for and what we’re going to get out there and fight for. But, you know, that’s what democracy is about. That’s what we’re responsible for doing -- making clear those differences, making our case to the American people, putting the wind in our own sail.
MADDOW: Do you think, strategically -- I know you were not mostly a political animal. You have -- this is the first time you have run for office. You came from a totally different background. But do you think that the Democrats are running a higher risk of giving the White House back to the Republicans if they don’t have a contested primary? If there isn’t a hard fight to see who the nominee is and if it ends up being Secretary Clinton essentially by acclimation?
--
MADDOW: Is the Democratic Party any better at that than the Republican Party, though? I mean, is the Democratic Party stronger on that? I mean, I know this is your cause. I know there are a handful of other economic populists in the Democratic Party who are high profile folks. But I think about -- you know, Senator Schumer is ascending in the leadership in the Democrats, he’s received a ton of Wall Street money, he’s a New York senator, I get it, but he’s been not a critic. I look at Senator Clinton as the expected nominee. I don’t see any distance between her and Wall Street interests there. Is there any difference between Democrats and Republicans on that?
