Elizabeth Warren's Daily Show Debut

April 16, 2009 9:34 PM

Last night, Elizabeth Warren visited John Stewart's Daily Show for a lengthy interview: Interview Part One and Interview Part Two. Warren, tapped last November to head congressional oversight of TARP (she has been mentioned before on the blue here and here), is a Harvard Law Professor with a strong interest in economic history (see here and here for more).
posted by ornate insect (30 comments total)

Mrs. Landingham? Also, damn that was a scary interview.
posted by The White Hat at 9:42 PM on April 16, 2009

she was FUNNY! (not the subject, per se)
posted by OHenryPacey at 9:42 PM on April 16, 2009

She's generally substantially funnier and more engaging than she was in this interview. Still, there's nobody I'd rather have in that position and I only wish she had greater oversight powers.
posted by allen.spaulding at 9:46 PM on April 16, 2009

She's great in Maxed Out, which is worth a look in light of the recent crisis, if you haven't seen it already.
posted by raysmj at 9:59 PM on April 16, 2009

She seemed stricken with stage fright in the first half, but her summary at the end was brilliant. I liked her.
posted by alexei at 10:02 PM on April 16, 2009

It scares me, the bit at the end, where she says we can go one way and have financial prosperity through strong regulation -- but only after she said we could have no regulation and boom and bust, boom and bust. I really sense that the Santellis of the world look forward to that one, because the only way they can feel a winner is if there are also losers.
posted by dhartung at 10:10 PM on April 16, 2009

"Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell."

Actually, it's capitalism with selective bankruptcy for most, but not the ones who are too valuable to fall, so it's a lot like Christianity.

Also, Maxed Out is on Netflix Instant Play.
posted by jabberjaw at 10:13 PM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

Related: SEC Chair Mary Schapiro Discusses The Changes Coming From The Agency (April 16, 2009)
posted by ornate insect at 10:15 PM on April 16, 2009

HIS NAME IS JON STEWART NO H IN IT GET IT RIGHT PEOPLE
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:17 PM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]

Her explanation at the end was fantastic. She was really great at explaining things in general. There've been a few other economists and what-not on TDS lately who seem to have a lot of trouble saying things so non-economists would understand them. Her, on the other hand? She's obviously someone who teaches others, and I greatly appreciated it.
posted by Ms. Saint at 10:32 PM on April 16, 2009 [3 favorites]

Echoing Ms. Saint, that was a very good clip and made things a bit more clear to me. Thanks for posting it.
posted by snwod at 10:36 PM on April 16, 2009

I thought it was quite nice that they decided to dedicate almost half the show to an interesting and enlightening interview related to current economic concerns instead of spending the greater part of twenty minutes ridiculing the tea party events and participants with double entendre and sexual innuendo.

Also, Mrs. Landingham.
posted by inconsequentialist at 11:16 PM on April 16, 2009

Amazing interview. So why isn't she doing the "grown up" version of this interview on all the major news networks?
posted by schwa at 4:08 AM on April 17, 2009 [2 favorites]

I've watched her several times on Maddow. I like her. Also, I think she's sort of hot.
posted by unSane at 4:26 AM on April 17, 2009 [3 favorites]

and there it is...
posted by kuujjuarapik at 5:52 AM on April 17, 2009 [8 favorites]

She seemed stricken with stage fright in the first half, but her summary at the end was brilliant.

She should be well past stage fright at this point in her career. Seemed to me that she was a little unprepared and failing to improvise in part one and reciting a well rehearsed lecture in part two.
posted by IndigoJones at 6:26 AM on April 17, 2009

Hunh. I thought she just had a more laconic sense of comedic timing. I haven't seen her elsewhere to compare, though. Most of her pauses (etc.) seemed deliberate (and I enjoyed them).
posted by Casuistry at 7:24 AM on April 17, 2009 [3 favorites]

She's brilliant; I really wish Stewart wouldn't try to dumb down the interview though. She knows so much more than what was asked. It comes down to this being a comedy show and not This Week or Meet The Press. Stewart really does have a chance to make it more serious, but I suppose his advertisers are looking for laughs.

I suppose I'm not the target audience, anyway.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:40 AM on April 17, 2009

It took Stewart half the interview to figure out how to get her comfortable. It wasn't her fault, he does that a lot. They clearly worked out a better rapport for the 2nd half, as she was much less off balance.

I like the show generally, but there are far too many instances of Stewart not knowing how to address his guest to get a productive interview.

You think he'd be better at it by now.
posted by Aquaman at 8:31 AM on April 17, 2009 [1 favorite]

Obligatory Canadian links:
Part 1, Part 2
posted by purephase at 8:31 AM on April 17, 2009

I saw this and thought, great, here we have one of what is probably no more than a handful of really smart, articulate, historically-minded people who speak their mind and give no B.S. answers and what do we do? We stick her in charge of a congressional oversight panel with no enforcement or subpoena powers.

Prof. Warren makes Tim Geithner look like the Wall-Street corporate bag-boy that he really is.

Also, 2nd-ing Casuistry's take on Warren's sense of humor. TV is not a medium that conveys the dramatic/ironic pause well.
posted by webhund at 8:36 AM on April 17, 2009

Her history of financial crises in america thing was fascinating. she described a timeline of consistent 15 year panic cycles only finally interrupted by federal regulation, and how the unraveling of those regulatory practices has resulted time and time again since it started that financial crises immediately result.

which sounds to me, in my complete financial ignorance, like a nice way of explaining the extremely cynical idea that if you give the financial sector the slightest leeway the first thing they will do is lie, cheat and steal, up to and beyond the point of destroying the economy itself.
posted by shmegegge at 9:17 AM on April 17, 2009 [1 favorite]

has resulted time and time again since it started that financial crises immediately result.


that's one well written sentence right there. let me try that again.

has shown time and again that financial crises immediately result.
posted by shmegegge at 9:18 AM on April 17, 2009

Stewart said she made him feel better, but when she said that all she can really do is go on TV and talk about TARP, that just made me sad.
posted by homunculus at 6:50 PM on April 17, 2009

Thanks, purephase.

pony request: there should be automatic URL substitution for this sort of thing. It's common enough to warrant it, IMO. It's a pretty small list of regularly-occuring providers.

Also, I think I've just fallen in love with the professor. I want to take her classes. They would make for a fantastically enjoyable learning experience; I only had a few professors that were as captivating and inspiring as she, so I think her students are quite lucky.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:14 PM on April 17, 2009

if you give the financial sector the slightest leeway the first thing they will do is lie, cheat and steal, up to and beyond the point of destroying the economy itself

Because the only way you get to make humongous money is through dire risk. To gamble it all on the biggest possible jackpot. It is the only way to win big big big.

Were you fully informed of the risks? Why not?

If we have a fair electoral system, the only way this can happen is if we elect fools, liars, cheaters, or thieves to office. We could elect properly honest people instead. If most people are not fools, liars, cheaters, or thieves, themselves, that is. If we don't outnumber them, we're doomed.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:22 PM on April 17, 2009

Oops. That was supposed to be in this thread, vis-a-vis the "pulling at the threads of regulation" that allowed the tainted blood scandal to happen, and has allowed the current crisis to happen.

The only way to have a civil society is to ensure that businesses are well-regulated and are never allowed to be too big to fail. And besides, diversity is healthier: more varied research, more competition for excellence, and a lessened ability to greatly harm the whole planet.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:31 PM on April 17, 2009

We could elect properly honest people instead.

Except that they hardly ever stand for office.
posted by Ritchie at 5:06 AM on April 19, 2009

Maybe in your neck of the woods; I can't speak to that.

But where I live, many good and honest people do put themselves out there for election. And on the whole I think a good many of them do get elected. I despise the jackass that represents my district, but I don't think he's making decisions to benefit his own self or his friends: it's just that he's old and religious and doesn't grasp the long-term implications of some of his decisions.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:53 AM on April 19, 2009

Planet Money's Adam Davidson has apparently declared Elizabeth Warren to be on the economic fringe because she, you know, thinks that the crisis in American household economies - leading to serious debt and bankruptcies - is both related to and as important as the banking crisis.
posted by jb at 7:41 PM on May 10, 2009