[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Elizabeth Warren on Hillary Clinton's embrace of her populist message: 'Eh' Is Hillary Clinton co-opting Elizabeth Warren’s progressive message? Warren has a one-word answer: “Eh.” The Massachusetts senator and liberal hero added to her inscrutable initial response in an interview with the New Yorker: “She’s laying out her vision for the country and she deserves an opportunity to do that.” But the opaqueness of her answer will raise eyebrows about Warren’s role as a Democratic party powerbroker as she continues to put pressure on Clinton from the left. As Clinton turns towards populism to shore up the Democratic base in her run for the White House, her rhetoric increasingly sounds like Warren’s. [...] progressive language serves as a way for Clinton to prove her liberal bona fides and appeal to those in the party skeptical of her ties to Wall Street. According to the New Yorker, Clinton invited Warren to her Washington home in December to listen to the Massachusetts senator’s views on income inequality, and members of Clinton’s team have consulted with one of Warren’s closest advisers about the economy. Clinton also paid tribute to Warren in Time magazine recently, saying: “She never hesitates to hold powerful people’s feet to the fire: bankers, lobbyists, senior government officials and, yes, even presidential aspirants.” The New Yorker article also touches on an early incident between Clinton and Warren, when, according to Warren, Clinton agreed to help her stop a bankruptcy bill “that Warren felt was written, essentially, by the credit-card industry”. Once she had become senator for New York, however, Clinton voted for a version of the same bill. [...] When the New Yorker presented Warren with the critique – ascribed to Clinton advisers – that she places too much blame on Wall Street as the root of America’s economic problems, Warren responded: “I think it’s important to hold Wall Street accountable. Some of the biggest financial institutions in this country developed a business model around cheating American families, and they put out the riskiest possible products. They sold mortgages that were like grenades with the pins pulled out, and then they packaged up those risks and sold them to pension plans and municipal governments, groups that did not intend to buy high-risk financial products. “That’s how Wall Street blew up the American economy. That’s a genuine threat, and that’s worth paying attention to.” [...] ======== Readers comments: Even if Clinton drops out, moves to Japan, and becomes a Buddhist nun. First of all, Warren is in a far better position to make a difference where she is, in the Senate, than she would be in the White House. And she knows this. Secondly, Warren's chances of getting the nomination are essentially zero. Ignoring the fact that her appeal is largely to the liberal/progressive wing of the party, you've got the problem that the big financial corporations are absolutely dead set against her and would spend whatever it takes to keep her from getting anywhere near the White House. Biden, O'Malley, Webb or even Chafee would suddenly find themselves sitting on huge campaign war-chests. Warren knows this as well. Thirdly, the Republicans are setting themselves up for a long protracted primary battle that promises to be vicious. The best chance the Democrats stand is to unite quickly behind a single candidate for the nomination and avoid a similar fight among themselves. If Warren runs, it pretty much guarantees that kind of fight because of reason #2. Warren knows this. === Hillary helped the banksters with that Wall Street bill while NY senator and that was quite a while back. She knew what she was doing garnering the cronyism good will and making her bones in the industrial financial mafia matrix. Now pretending to be a champion of the struggling citizenry, what stunning hypocrisy. She's trying to match Obama's level? That would be hard to beat. Though she is using his playbook, though he is using Bill's in a way with the lesser evilism now so in your face. Maybe she'll get the peace prize as well. Her buddy Kissinger got one. === As much as I like Warren's positions (and boy how I like them) I have to agree about her presidential chances. She can be much more influencial in the Senate especially if the Democrates become the majority. Warren on the Senate Finance Committee would be a joy to behold === Ms. Warren would certainly be a breath of much needed fresh air in the smoke-filled and otherwise non-transparent backrooms of the Democrat party leadership, where the souls of politicians have long been purchased by plutocrats and corporate heads. Problem is those powerful folks won't let her in, even though she poses no more than a rhetorical nuisance or political threat to them. Besides, they've already committed their checks to Hillary and the new Billary, who promises to be a good boy this time around. Frankly, whether Billary can toe the line is probably the only interesting issue in next year's primaries and general election. === "Feh!" is more like it. Two thumbs up for Warren, two fungus-infected toes for Hillary. === To win you have to play the game and that's what Clinton is doing. Populist? Anti-Wall Street? The scourge of Big Bank? Hardly. She's going to tack hard to the right after she gets the nomination and you won't see her even bothering with the appearance of cozying up to Warren. Warren could win if she ran. Even without the campaign contributions from the plutocrats. === Warren is a good, compasionate intellectual; they do not win national elections anymore - since Teddy R. maybe. Only greedy, deluded ladder climbing strivers are embraced by the monied class and promoted by the MS media. The 1% do not want to share; they know there's not enough $ for everyone to share fairly. So, we will be beaen down by hacks for plutocrats - cretins like Chris Christie and Donny Trump and the Bush boys and you have the Posh boys, Davy and George. Too Too bad for us all. === The progressives will be having deja vu and waking up to the same corporatist hangover and disappointment they experienced with Obama; a lot of feminist excitement not unlike the enthusiasm surrounding the first black President's campaign and inauguration. The establishment Democrats will never learn, nor are they capable of understanding that changing the fonts doesn't change the script the aristocrats rule from after the bubbly enthusiasm of the campaign season has long since disappointed them and worn tired by the same succession of corporatists from both parties who never fail to pay back their high-rolling, deep-pocketed donors. Good-Bye Mr. President. . .hello Madam President. True populism is "taking it to the streets", not assisting the rich taking it to the bank. === A 2 term president is almost always followed by the candidate from the opposite party. It will be hard for any democrat in the next election. Elizabeth Warren is a tremendous representative for the average person. The best in a long time. That's why she doesn't stand a chance. The average people don't have the money.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A Pole (#0)
There's no doubt that 2016 will be one of the most dismal and uninspiring election cycles in our nation's history.
The last seven have been dismal. Why break a popular trend that is destroying the country?
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|