Hillary's Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren.

[kpete]

Hillary's Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren.

On one side is a majority of Democratic voters, who are angrier, more disaffected, and altogether more populist than they’ve been in years. They are more attuned to income inequality than before the Obama presidency and more supportive of Social Security and Medicare.1 They’ve grown fonder of regulation and more skeptical of big business.2 A recent Pew poll showed that voters under 30—who skew overwhelmingly Democratic—view socialism more favorably than capitalism. Above all, Democrats are increasingly hostile to Wall Street and believe the government should rein it in.

On the other side is a group of Democratic elites associated with the Clinton era who, though they may have moved somewhat leftward in response to the recession—happily supporting economic stimulus and generous unemployment benefits—still fundamentally believe the economy functions best with a large, powerful, highly complex financial sector. Many members of this group have either made or raised enormous amounts of cash on Wall Street. They were deeply influential in limiting the reach of Dodd-Frank, the financial reform measure Obama signed in July of 2010.

.........

long, interesting, more:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

[brooklynite]

1. I support Elizabeth Warren...in her support of Hillary Clinton

[NoOneMan]

6. “All of the Senate Democratic women have written her a letter encouraging her to run,” - Hagen

That's classy! Warren encouraged Hillary to run. Its also expected.

The real question: will Hillary have the class to encourage Warren to run?

[brooklynite]

10. Explain what "Class" has to do with it?

Warren DOES NOT WANT TO RUN. Hillary is clearly thinking about it.

[NoOneMan]

11. Its classy to encourage your allies to run.

In my opinion. Maybe not yours. I just wonder if Hillary will follow suite and write similar secret letters.

[brooklynite]

13. Who did Obama encourage to run in 2008?

Who did Kerry encourage to run in 2004? Who did Gore encourage to run in 2000?

It's not what politicians do. It what people who SUPPORT SOMEONE ELSE's CANDIDACY do.

The only reason this is coming up is that the anti-Hillary brigade can't accept that their hero might actually WANT Hillary Clinton to be President.

[NoOneMan]

15. I don't know. This was a secret letter afterall

Maybe we aren't normally told about these secret letters.


I got to wonder why we were told about this one. Maybe to make a lie out of it (warren endorsement lie)

[Agschmid]

16. The lines between which you read are...

Quite wide.

[NoOneMan]

19. This entire lie is taking liberties with the truth

People are running around saying Warren doesn't want to run and she endorsed hillary from a single quote:

“All of the Senate Democratic women have written her a letter encouraging her to run,” Hagan

[winter is coming]

61. It's an interesting preview of the campaign to come. n/t

[Tx4obama]

71. Secret letter? I read about the letter the female senators sent in the news about a week ago.

[NoOneMan]

74. "In Secret Letter, Senate Democratic Women Rally Behind Hillary Clinton"

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/in-secret-letter-senate-democratic-women-rally-behind-hillary-clinton/

The existence of the letter is based on a single quote that it exists (and doesn't mention anyone specifically). Its contents are not released.

It has been used systematically to suggest Warren is not running and she is endorsing Clinton. Yet, thats pretty much a fabrication from a single quote.

[dlwickham]

37. +1

the anti-Hillary brigade is looking for anyone to run against her

I wouldn't be surprised if some go hard right to support someone because of their dislike, don't like to use the word hatred, of her

[mattclearing]

83. How much more right can a Democrat be than Hillary?

You're getting into Mary Landrieu territory there.

[dlwickham]

99. so being a moderate is equal to being right wing?

what a bizarro little universe you live in

[mattclearing]

167. Think you may have missed something here.

We're talking about Democrats. Being "moderate" would put someone to the right of most Democrats.

[whathehell]

126. Thank you..n/t

[Maedhros]

160. "The answer is NONE."

"None more right."

[rhett o rick]

158. That's crap. The left is looking for a progressive to run. Someone that will fight the

corporatists, and that aint Ms. Clinton. We need someone that isnt in bed with Wall Street.

The Conservative-Dems want either Ms. Clinton or Gov Christie (as we have seen in NJ). They love that status-quo.

[Maedhros]

159. This is a very uninformed post.

The "anti-Hillary" brigade, of which I could be said to belong, doesn't want Hillary as President because she is too far right in her policies. We would hardly vote for someone farther to the right.

I know that I don't dislike or hate Hillary as a person, and I suspect there are very, very few people on this board that do . Were I to meet her, I would probably enjoy her company. Her policies, however, are far too corporate-friendly to earn my vote.

[Beausoir]

92. Bingo. n/t

[MADem]

153. This article is divisive tripe from the right wing. Anyone buying it is either naive or

pushing a right wing agenda of "Divide and conquer."

[billhicks76]

40. Sad

The Clintonites got rich off the backs of the 99%. So what if they are slightly left leaning. They are there to enforce the status quo and only fools would follow them like lemmings off a cliff. The time for real change is now regardless of the doubters and naysayers that exclaim that electing a progressive is unrealistic. I remember the same people saying we couldn't elect a Black president too. The era of Clintons and Bushes is gone.

[whathehell]

127. +10 n/t

[Hestia]

132. Well said Bill and welcome

[calimary]

108. Good one, brooklynite!

This is a good way to put it! Certainly works for me!

[Zorra]

114. If Sen. Warren were somehow to be nominated, would you vote for her in the GE? nt

[brooklynite]

116. Of course...

...just likel I was always prepared to vote for Obama while working for Clinton in 2008.

The only people here who say they won't necessarily support the Democratic nominee are anti-Hillary folks.

[NoOneMan]

2. Hillary has no nightmare. She is as inevitable as in 2008

[cui bono]

36. Okay then, she's a recurring nightmare.

[billhicks76]

58. Lol

The New Republic has an in depth editorial stating that the actual Democratic Party belongs to Elizabeth Warren now. And that Warren will run against Clinton if she maintains her Unbreakable ties to Big Finance.

[NoOneMan]

59. There is no way this inevitable candidate will lose to a freshman congress person!

[closeupready]

72. It's never happened before. Don't know why you're laughing.

[joshcryer]

77. The best thing about "inevitable 2008" posts.

When she wins the first post I will write was, "I guess she was inevitable after all."

We need to get a challenger ready now. Prepped. In the launch tube. If we don't we're fucked and we're going to have her as President.

[Divernan]

82. "Inevitable" candidates have a way of becoming distinctly "evitable".

"Anyone who lived through 2008 knows that inevitable candidates have a way of becoming distinctly evitable. With the Clintons’ penchant for melodrama and their checkered cast of hangers-on—one shudders to consider the embarrassments that will attend the Terry McAuliffe administration in Virginia—Clinton-era nostalgia is always a news cycle away from curdling into Clinton fatigue. Sometimes, all it takes is a single issue and a fresh face to bring the bad memories flooding back.

The last time Clinton ran, of course, the issue was Iraq and the gleaming new mug was Barack Obama’s. This time the debate will be about the power of America’s wealthiest. And, far more than with foreign policy, which most Democrats agreed on by 2008, this disagreement will cut to the very core of the party: what it stands for and who it represents.

On one side is a majority of Democratic voters, who are angrier, more disaffected, and altogether more populist than they’ve been in years. They are more attuned to income inequality than before the Obama presidency and more supportive of Social Security and Medicare. They’ve grown fonder of regulation and more skeptical of big business. A recent Pew poll showed that voters under 30—who skew overwhelmingly Democratic—view socialism more favorably than capitalism. Above all, Democrats are increasingly hostile to Wall Street and believe the government should rein it in.

On the other side is a group of Democratic elites associated with the Clinton era who, though they may have moved somewhat leftward in response to the recession—happily supporting economic stimulus and generous unemployment benefits—still fundamentally believe the economy functions best with a large, powerful, highly complex financial sector. Many members of this group have either made or raised enormous amounts of cash on Wall Street. They were deeply influential in limiting the reach of Dodd-Frank, the financial reform measure Obama signed in July of 2010.

[hfojvt]

156. What a nightmare that could be though

Imagine being stuck as a rich. famous person, unable to become President and pass policies to help the rich. That would just suck. That's like cruel and unusual punishment or something.

[scheming daemons]

3. Except Warren supports Hillary.

Oh well.

[NoOneMan]

7. She endorsed her publicly for president in 2016?!?!

ZOMG!!!!!!

Or that's a bit of a stretchy-poo....

“All of the Senate Democratic women have written her a letter encouraging her to run,” Hagan told a gathering organized by EMILY’s List, according to Capital New York.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/in-secret-letter-senate-democratic-women-rally-behind-hillary-clinton/

I wonder how many people Hillary will encourage to run along with her

[Gore1FL]

23. She will encourage none, in all likelihood.

She'll want campaigning and fundraising from competent people. Asking them to be opponents instead simply removes talent and support from her campaign. It also drains and dilutes potential sources of funding, staffing, and voters. At the same time it creates a greater need for campaigning and fundraising from competent people to address the larger field of candidates.

[Whisp]

24. I can't imagine Warren, or anyone, not signing and trying to 'splain that.

This means nothing.

[NoOneMan]

43. Exactly.

Don't sign it and you are a terrible, self-absorbed, jealous Democrat. Sign it and it will be systematically used in a campaign to undermine you as a potential candidate, by creating a lie about your endorsement (see the very first reply to this thread!).

I have to wonder, who started this secret letter? What is the real purpose of it (encouragement, or to undermine other potential women candidates)? Its existence is a mere rumor from a single quote, so we don't know the contents of how all these women "encouraged" Hillary. Yet, the secret is publicly broadcasted and used in a lie, repeatedly, that tries to say Warren is bowing out and endorsing her. The thing reeks.

I can't help but be suspicious because whenever there is a Warren for President mention, almost immediately this lie is crafted and thrown out there to convince people to forget about Warren and settle for Hillary the Inevitable.

[HappyMe]

112. Good point.

I can't imagine the shit storm Warren would have faced if she didn't sign it.

[Jackpine Radical]

110. Don't sign it and you're the first target of the Hillary Machine.

[Whisp]

117. and the media would Frenzy about dat!

and help bury the unsigner

[pa28]

35. Yep. A bit of a stretchy-poo and it's already shown up twice in this thread.

Oh well.

[NoOneMan]

42. The first and third reply. Interesting how lies spread themselves

[JDPriestly]

51. But if the Democratic grassroots prefers Warren, surely Hillary will have the best interests

of the Party at heart and defer to Warren for the nomination.

It would be pretty petty and awful of Hillary not to respect the preference of the grassroots of the Party.

We know she gets her financial support from Wall Street, but where would she get her feet on the ground, phone to the ear support? Also from Wall Street?

If we say Warren, we will get Warren.

[bvar22]

124. She would get her support from Wall Street and her base, the Top 6%

....what she calls "The Middle Class".

Whatever happened to that guy that was going to Raise-the-CAP?
He would have made a good president.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

130. Clip worth watching. Thanks.

Love our sig as well.

[PoliticalPothead]

151. This clip just makes me sad.

How can you go from wanting to raise the cap to supporting chained-CPI? I just don't get it.

[bvar22]

162. There is only one way to do that,

.....and if I said it here, I would probably get a tombstone.




You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises or excuses.

[freshwest]

68. Correct! And she's not running, either:

BREAKING: Elizabeth Warren supports Hillary for President

ABC News:

All of the female Democratic senators signed a secret letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton early this year encouraging her to run for president in 2016 – a letter that includes the signature of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other senators who are mentioned as potential candidates, two high-ranking Democratic Senate aides told ABC News.

The letter, organized at the urging of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was meant to be a private show of support from a group of 16 high-profile former colleagues and fans who are now senators, urging Clinton to do what much of the Democratic Party assumes she will, the aides said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/in-secret-letter-senate-democratic-women-rally-behind-hillary-clinton/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023950130

And...

Elizabeth Warren Not Interested In Running For President

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) insisted in a recent interview with The New York Times that she does not plan to seek the presidency.

"In the interview, Warren, 64, said twice that she had no interest in running for president, a point her aides amplify privately," reported The Times. "But she said she would continue to focus on economic fairness, saying it is the signal issue of the day."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/elizabeth-warren-president_n_4016319.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023752134

Does anyone think both of these stories are in error?

BTW, Hillary is not my favorite. She has not even announced, and she has not really expressed what she would do, period. In 2008 her campaign was about running against McCain, and seemed to be more interested in foreign affairs than domestic ones. That is what 2014 and 2016 will be about.

But she is not responsible for what Bill did in office, nor Bush. The first three charges most often laid at her feet, NAFTA, Glass Seagall and the Iraq War and a desire for the TPP don't add up, just like a sudden loss of sovereignty doesn't.

Birchers say we lost that when we joined the UN. I would suspect we don't have any JBS Koch fans here, but the meme is endless to frighten people. In a way, we never had control or sovereignty over many things in this nation. But that's for another day.

I'm not sure what the intent of an OP is, that seems to want a battle between two women in the Democratic Party that do not oppose each other. Will Warren be tossed under the bus at DU?

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Tis past due for a populism movement/platform.

Good article.

[winter is coming]

46. +1000. Candidates who can credibly run on populist platforms are going to be popular with voters

in '14 and '16. Any candidate who can't walk that walk will be at a severe disadvantage. That is the nightmare and Hillary's not the only candidate who should be concerned.

[Divernan]

85. Like Obama,Clinton may campaign as a populist, but post election will serve big $$$ donors.

This OP link is the most powerful, painstakingly detailed, well-reasoned editorial I have ever read - and I've read a lot of editorials. It points out the rise of populism during the Obama years, which renders Hilary Clinton even less appealing as a presidential primary candidate then when she was competing with Obama. Unless you are currently in the employ of the Clintons, or otherwise have a personal stake in a Clinton candidacy or Big Finance, this editorial will move you from the Clinton camp to the Warren camp.

Judging from recent events, the populists are likely to win. In September, New York City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, running on a platform of taming inequality, routed his Democratic mayoral rival, Christine Quinn, known for her ties to Michael Bloomberg’s finance-friendly administration. The following week, Larry Summers, Obama’s first choice to succeed Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve chairman, withdrew his name from consideration after months in which Senate Democrats signaled their annoyance with his previous support for deregulation. Not 48 hours later, Bill Daley, the former Obama chief of staff and JP Morgan executive, ended his primary campaign for governor of Illinois after internal polls showed him trailing his populist opponent.

All of this is deeply problematic for Hillary Clinton. As a student of public opinion, she clearly understands the direction her party is headed. As the head of an enterprise known as Clinton Inc. that requires vast sums of capital to function, she also realizes there are limits to how much she can alienate the lords of finance. For that matter, it’s not even clear Clinton would want to. “Many of her best friends, her intellectual brain trust [on economics], all come out of that world,” says a longtime Democratic operative who worked on Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign and then for Hillary in the White House. “She doesn’t have a problem on the fighting-for-working-class-folks side”—protecting Medicare and Social Security—“but it will be hard, really wrenching for her to be that populist on finance issues.”

[dixiegrrrrl]

87. "to be that populist on finance issues.”

That issue may be decided for all and any 2016 candidates, if TPTB fail to hold the economy together long enough till the election gets off the ground.

[NYC_SKP]

5. Progressives need to stand up RIGHT NOW and "NO!", We Will Not Accept Less!

No More Dynasties.

No More Clintons, No more Bushes.

grrrrr.

[wildbilln864]

8. + 1! n/t

[NRaleighLiberal]

9. +111111111111111111111111 n/t

[Scuba]

17. +8,749

[Whisp]

25. +plus+

[bigwillq]

26. Standing Up with you!

[Major Hogwash]

30. I'm standing up RIGHT NOW for NYC_SKP for President in 2016!!!

That will put an end to all of this silly speculation right now!

[NYC_SKP]

31. Wah, come here ya big doh!

[WillyT]

34. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[dflprincess]

52. Amen!

[Vashta Nerada]

98. +1

[L0oniX]

104. +++++++++++++

[ReRe]

111. To the moon, NYC_SKP!

+ 1 Trillion

[BrainDrain]

119. I could not agree more...

no more of these freakin tools...

[bvar22]

163. Good Luck to us all.

The Power Brokers in the conservative Democratic Party Establishment don't like upstart grass roots, Pro-LABOR, Fringe Leftists making waves and upsetting the Money Machine.

We did everything right in Arkansas
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3971264

[davidpdx]

166. +1

[Half-Century Man]

12. If Ms. Warren would like my vote, she can have it.

As well as any help I can give, but due to being on disability and in poverty, I have little money to contribute. I do however have an axe to grind and an abundance of free time.

[JimDandy]

14. I'm with you there. n/t

[woofless]

22. Me too.

[WillyT]

18. K & R !!!

[Cirque du So-What]

20. The Democratic soul may lie with Elizabeth Warren

but I fear its ass may belong to Wall Street.

[TheDebbieDee]

21. This thread is stirring up shit............

That's my two cents. Have fun everybody!

[rosesaylavee]

27. I would embrace Warren in 2016

but will vote for whoever the dem candidate will be. I admire Hillary Clinton but she has to explain her relationship with DC's The Family before I support her for an elected post let alone the presidency.

[NYC_SKP]

29. word. nt.

[liberalmuse]

28. I love Elizabeth Warren.

But I'll vote for Hillary if she's the one on the ticket, and I'll do so with a clean conscience. I also voted for President Barack Obama with a clean conscience, and do not regret my decision in the least.

[coldmountain]

33. In this environment, not supporting Hillary is supporting the Tea Party

No more false equivalency lies like Gore was the same as Bush, America can't afford it

[freshwest]

65. True. Try a permanent government shutdown if they get in office out for size if the GOP wins...

I'm amazed Democrats so easily forget what the GOP wants to do to all of us.

[whathehell]

128. See what the environment is in three years..

It could be quite different.

[IrishAyes]

32. Sez who the soul of the Democratic Party belongs to someone other than Hillary?

Despite my great admiration for Warren, I'm still pro-Hillary all the way. Say what you want about that. I know you won't like it, but that won't make a tinker's damn worth of difference. There's a lot more like me too.

[dflprincess]

53. Well, if you liked NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Iraq war & think TPP is a good idea

then Hillary's the candidate for you.

[Whisp]

38. Excellent read. Elizabeth Warren for President.

These words may be soothingly diplomatic, but her methods usually are not—and that should be terrifying for Hillary. An opponent who doesn’t heed political incentives is like a militant who doesn’t fear death. “Yeah, Hillary is running. And she’ll probably win,” says the former aide. “But Elizabeth doesn’t care about winning. She doesn’t care whose turn it is.”

[Phlem]

39. you know, there was a member that got kicked out for posting shit.

Very interesting fellow (and not in the good way). We argued a lot but one of the things I clearly remember about him is he supported Hillary 100% because "she has no skeletons in her closet."

I'm thinking if a troll gets busted for doing what they do, and professing undying love for a particular Democratic candidate, I'm going to do a double take.

I still don't understand the heart warming feelings for Bill. I know for certain he signed NAFTA into law and started this down word spiral. I don't know, maybe we were circling the drain before that but I'm pretty sure NAFTA didn't help.



-p

[zeemike]

47. It seems to me that Hilliary would be the GOP's choice.

They already have a lot of ammunition to fire at her...no need to hunt up something.
And knowing the people are tired of the dynasty shit all they need to do is run someone like Christie or Rubio as some new blood and they could win it.
And we have those in our party to help it along by insisting she is inevitable.

[Beacool]

76. Elizabeth Warren is prepared to be president after a handful of months in her first elected office?

She is an economist who rails against Wall Street, what other experience in government does she have to run the country? The Left is clinging to Warren like The Tea Party is clinging to Cruz. They both have the same level of experience: 9 months in elected office. Big whoop-dee-doo. Never mind that she has repeatedly demonstrated zero interest in running for president.

[zeemike]

78. Well perhaps that is just what we need.

someone who is not entrenched in governemnt...we elected them with experience and what did we get?...nothing changed...just like you would expect nothing to change if you put a banker in charge for the federal reserve.

But that would suggest you think Obama is a failure because he had little experience before becoming president.

[NoOneMan]

49. I can't imagine there is anything more to be unearthed on Hillary

She ran in 2008. She's been in the public spotlight all this time. Her votes are public (and some shitty ones at that). She likely doesn't have any skeletons in her closet

[Whisp]

103. I can think of at least two things, off hand. Big things that didn't get much attention:

1. The Honduras coup that she and Lanny Davis were involved in. I don't think I saw Anything on the media about that one.

and
2. The investigation into the cover up at the State Dept when Hillary was SoS about sexual assault, pedophilia, drug running. Apparently this coverup went way up to 'the top floor'. That story broke out in the middle of June and flared for a very short time. A new investigation should have been out 'end of summer' but it's mysteriously disappeared.

[Revanchist]

50. Is this the same person who was predicting a Clinton/Obama dynasty?

I think it went 8 years of Hillary, then Michelle, then Chelsea I'm not sure who was supposed to follow after that, maybe one of Obama's kids or maybe their current dog, it gets a little fuzzy.

[davidpdx]

165. That was Graham

May he not rest in peace

[Revanchist]

169. In a way I miss him

His posts were hilarious to read, sort of like trying to make sense of timecube.com

[davidpdx]

171. I just hope he got the help he needed

[BeyondGeography]

41. Excellent, informative article

Even-handed, too. Well worth the read.

[JDPriestly]

44. Elizabeth Warren speaks for most Americans.

[JeffHead]

45. My heart is with Warren but...

My head is with Hillary. Just look at what we've been through for the last five years with the black man in the white house. All the obstruction, all the birther crap, all the just total lunacy that's happening on the right. Obama has split the Republican party in two. To be clear, I'm not a huge Hillary fan. I think she's a bit too corporate for my liking but, on the other hand she's just the person to finish them off. Not only would she be the first woman president but, Hillary has been a thorn in their side for over twenty years. It will drive them beyond insane. Leave Elizabeth Warren in the Senate for now. I like to see her going after the wall street greed machine. She's doing important work where she's at. Maybe Warren 2020 or 2024 until then, she'll be sticking up for us every day she serves in the Senate and I thank her for that.

[Rozlee]

48. Elizabeth Warren/Wendy Davis 2016!

[TwilightGardener]

54. No reason why she shouldn't run. It would only be good for Democrats.

She may well lose, if only because of a lack of starpower and the fact that she doesn't strike me as a very natural politician, but I would like a viable alternative to...you know who...

[libdem4life]

55. Not clear why this is up for discussion...Elizabeth Warren has endorsed Hillary. That's usually a

pretty clear sign she isn't running. Also read that her family does not want her to run either and I can't blame them. She's more than just a Progressive political trinket. She has hard and very important work to do in the Senate trying to keep the "corporates" from raiding us further. She could not do that in a national spotlight...no way, no how. That's why we're pretty much left with Hillary.

[calimary]

107. I would like to see her where she could do the most good.

Maybe after years in the Senate, the Supreme Court?

She's too good a weapon not to use as effectively as we could! And clone! Unfortunately, I think she might have trouble in a general election because of the forces behind the legions of gullible and ill-informed (too many of them willingly and even proudly ill-informed) voters in this country. We're not there yet. We're just STARTING to push this country back toward the left. We're just starting to gain some ground here.

[libdem4life]

122. She is an brilliant academic, has a classic presence who is not only principled, but able to

get people to cooperate. We desperately need her in the Senate, especially with a veto-proof majority...one can hope.

Right now the Democratic candidate needs to be somewhere in the area of a prize fighter with a megaphone in one hand and a sword in the other, figuratively speaking of course, to fend off the venom of the RW and TP. For ill or for good, that pretty much describes Hillary.

Justice Warren. Hopefully the timing will permit.

[bajamary]

56. Warren for President 2016

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

I already have a bumper sticker on my car that says:

Elizabeth Warren for President 2016

It would be my pleasure to donate $ and volunteer for Warren. In 2008 I worked for Obama for three solid and very hectic months. I'd gladly triple that amount of my time for Warren.

[stuffmatters]

57. Transpacific Partnership. Chained CPI, Keystone Pipeline

I would vote for Hillary against any Republican.

But Hillary better start looking at taking outspoken positions against two of Obama's irrationally anti Democratic brand positions (TPP& Chained CPI) Both reek of Wall Street puppetry not advocacy for populist needs. And Keystone, as SOS Hillary's fingerprints are as much on that corrupt environmental study as they are on the mind bogging surrender of American independence to global corporatism of the TPP. Both projects were under her responsibility as SOS. She never spoke out against either.

Clinton's husband left the legacy of the anti labor NAFTA, the cruelty towards the vulnerable of his welfare legislation, the dismantling of New Deal protections of Glass Steagall. As senator Hillary voted for the war in Iraq and the immensely cruel and irresponsible pro Wall Street bankruptcy act. At this moment in time, the Clinton brand appears more pro Wall Street oligarchy than for the taxpayers who are simply financial exhausted from subsidizing them and emotionally drained from the relentless betrayal of the Democratic brand by their .0001% bankrolled legislators.

The social issues Hillary champions are championed by all Dems...women/gay/civil rights... no brainers. It's economic issues that are ground zero right now in Dems intraparty struggle for national id. If Hillary doesn't get away from the Wall Street side and onto the populist side, then Warren might feel that she has to challenge Hillary simply on principles. Then I for one will be happy if she does.
At this point to support a Wall Street Dem, and Bill's administration left Obama's teaming with them, is to support politics I find repulsive and destructive both to the Democratic Party and the future of American democracy.

[Divernan]

91. UR so right! Economic issues are ground zero and Hilary/Bill are 1 %ers all the way.

Bill Clinton is the wealthiest living ex president - more $$$ than Papa Bush. His personal worth is plus $50 million and coming from his poor background, it's all $$$ he's made since leaving office. Then there's little Chelsea and her $10.5 million NYC "apartment", funded by her and her husband's ill-gotten hedge fund gains. The Clintons are One Percenters, no two ways about it.

"Unlike other presidents, Clinton did not inherit any wealth and gained little net worth during 20 plus years of public service. After his time in the White House, however, he earned a substantial income as an author and public speaker. Clinton received a large advance for his autobiography. His wife, the current Secretary of State, also has earned money as an author."

In our updated list, the only currently living president who makes the wealthiest list is Bill Clinton, who has an estimated net worth of $55 million. Clinton continues to make millions of dollars in speaking fees. This January, following an email from Bill Clinton to supporters, Hilary Clinton's 2008 campaign debt was paid off.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/02/16/richest-usa-presidents/1923739/

[Enthusiast]

144. I'm with you 100%.

I believe most of us are. We cannot ignore the facts.

[FairWinds]

60. As a political scientist, (OK, retired) . .

I say with some confidence that Elizabeth would DEMOLISH Hillary
in the primaries. Given the climate of the times, I don't think this is an unrealistic assessment.
On a tangential note, the last straw for me with Hillary was the Haiti wage theft fiasco.
http://www.workersrights.org/freports/WRC%20Haiti%20Minimum%20Wage%20Report%2010%2015%2013.pdf
Those people have suffered quite enough.

[Whisp]

80. Never in a million damn years would I support things like this, which the Clintons are famous for:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/haiti-reconstruction-luxury-hotels-sweat-shops-and-deregulation-for-the-foreign-corporate-elite/5344546
One can easily tell by comparing the very slow construction of shelters and basic infrastructure for the Haitian majority with the rapid rise of luxury hotels for foreigners, sometimes with the help of aid funds which, we were told, were going to provide Haitians with basic necessities.

Most of the aid money went to donor countries’ businesses, government agencies and NGOs, as usual. International “aid” is a well-known capitalist scheme aimed at developing markets in the global south for businesses from the North. Of course this “aid” will benefit Haitians. But only the very few elite ones: those in power and the rich corporate elite. “Haiti’s open for business” and deluxe hotels will be welcoming businessmen so they can set up their sweat shops in a cool and luxurious environment.

A year ago the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund invested humanitarian aid money in a five star hotel, as some 500,000 Haitians were still in displaced camps:


The giant Caracol Industrial Park was inaugurated in March 2013 in the presence of President Martelly, as well as “Haitian and foreign diplomats, the Clinton power couple, millionaires and actors, all present to celebrate the government’s clarion call: ‘Haiti is open for business.’” (The Caracol Industrial Park: Worth the risk? Haiti Grassroots Watch, March 7, 2013)

Clearly, in addition to providing slave labor for U.S. and other foreign garment companies, the Caracol Industrial Park has contributed to reduce even more what remains of the local farming in Haiti, eradicated over the years by a barbaric U.S. foreign policy.



When Noami Klein speaks of Disaster Capitalism, Bill and Hillary's photos should be held up high.

[Divernan]

93. Welcome to DU - good to have a political scientist on board.

[woo me with science]

102. [phone]

[Hestia]

137. Thank you for the link and welcome to DU

[left is right]

62. IMHO No woman, Democratic or Republican, will be elected in 2016

Most low-information voters will need a chance to take stock and evaluate the presidency of the first Black Man. They will need time to come to conclude that he not only didn’t run our nation over a cliff but he was also a successful president. People as a whole are resistant to change. You can’t heap too much of it at a time on them.

[wilsonbooks]

63. If Hillery is the nominee I will give her

my vote but I would work my ass off for Ms Warren. No more DLC DEMS. It is passed time for a progressive candidate.

[MannyGoldstein]

64. Happily supporting a *trickle-down" economic stimulus

Most of it was either tax cuts or paid to private companies.

[blue14u]

66. I would work my tail off

for Warren... I wish more than anything she would

run for POTUS... She is honest, articulate, knows the issues

and speaks her mind..(as does Hill, but Hill is to ingrained into

the Washington bubble for me, and that part about "The Family" hummm)....not good...

I will support the Democratic,

whoever that will be, no doubt about that at all. Liz Warren is for

the 99%, Not so sure Hillary is. With that said, if Hillary is running

she could help matters by putting Warren on the ticket with her and we would see a

LANDSLIDE WIN!!!!.. A LANDSLIDE!!...like never seen before!!!

[Iwillnevergiveup]

67. Good article

and thanks for posting. Plenty of speculatin' can be done about 2016, but we must, must, must focus on 2014. There are already great candidates who have announced (especially in the House), and we've gotta phone bank, knock on doors, send money and ORGANIZE to help get them elected. The House needs some serious cleaning.

Here's to a Democratic sweep!

[closeupready]

69. Yes. And it does - the future belongs to Democrats like Warren.

K&R

[7962]

70. If Hillary is the nominee, she will win, for reasons I put in my own little OP a couple days ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024006552

[nolabear]

73. Great. They'll divide us any way they can. I say first Hillary then Elizabeth.

I'd hate to see the Democratic Party have the same rift that the Republicans have, and at this point I think Hillary has a good chance and Warren does not, yet. I'd be willing to bet they both agree with that.

[Divernan]

89. With every passing year, Hilary's Big Finance ties further reduce her appeal/chances.

[Whisp]

125. Bill was defending Romney/Bain Capital...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bill-clinton-criticizes-obama-bain-attacks-praises-romney-141022725.html

Bill Clinton criticizes Obama’s Bain attacks, praises Romney’s ‘sterling business career’

Former President Bill Clinton suggested in a television interview Thursday that he believes President Barack Obama's re-election campaign should stop trashing Mitt Romney's work in the private equity industry.

In an interview with CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," Clinton, a top Obama surrogate who is set to raise cash with the president next week, directly contradicted Democrats who have attacked Romney's business record, suggesting it does qualify him for president.

"I think he had a good business career," Clinton told guest host Harvey Weinstein, a movie mogul who is one of Obama's top fundraisers. "There's no question that in terms of getting up and going to the office and, you know, basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

===
If that isn't a sick maker, I don't know what is. He does this shit all the time. He also had such supportive words for the Mass Murdering Chimperor and the Iraq war.

W.T. Royal F.?

[NealK]

75. Good article.

[Marrah_G]

79. I would work to get Warren elected

I would only vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination and I had no other choice.

No more corporatist, centrist politicians.

[avaistheone1]

81. Yes!

k&r

[Decaffeinated]

84. Their soul huh?

[bluedeathray]

86. Or dream come true?

Clinton/Warren 2016!

The possibilities are mind boggling!

[eggplant]

88. Um, you all realize there is still an election in 2014, right?

How about we get through that one first.

[Beausoir]

90. Warren is unelectable as President.

It won't happen in a million years.

[Laelth]

95. Your crystal ball is much better than mine, evidently.

Mine says Democrats win in 2016 no matter whom we nominate. Demographics are real.



-Laelth

[Laelth]

94. This is an excellent essay. Highly recommended. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[frazzled]

96. Why are we talking about "souls"?

My "soul" is not with Elizabeth Warren (any more than it is with Hillary Clinton). I think with my brain with regard to political matters, not my "soul."

Elizabeth Warren seems to me to be the new version of John Edwards circa 2007/early 2008. He talks about "the two Americas," and despite having never shown to have done a single thing about this situation, and despite a very short stint in public service of any kind, he becomes the new great white hope of people seeking an alternative to politics as usual.

Well, Elizabeth Warren has also had a very brief stint in public service--beginning in 2008, when Harry Reid appointed her to the TARP oversight board (someone correct me if I'm wrong about this). We all know that she was a registered Republican until 1995, surprisingly late in life to have seen the light. We know that she appointed many Wall Street bankers to the CFPB during her time there setting up the agency (which is ok with me: I bought her explanation that these were the people who knew the system best, from the inside). Otherwise, we know very little about her positions on an entire range of issues, or how she would govern. She's a fine person, but at this point, still largely a cipher.

Let's not keep having soul-grabbing darlings who are merely convenient foils for our impatience and dissatisfaction with the status quo. I don't believe Elizabeth Warren would have an iota more success in changing things than Barack Obama has had. The trenches are muddy out there, and the reality is that any Democratic candidate is going to have to get down in that mud. There are no magic bullets to liberal nirvana, but rather a slow slog. I'm sure Mayor de Blasio, who has a long and storied history of fighting for progressive causes, is going to have to make compromises and disappoint us, too; and I'm sure he'll be the first to admit it. But he'll also make some good dents in the system, and hopefully bring a small amount more equity to the people of New York. And for that I'll be very glad.

[libdem4life]

134. Well aren't you just a cheery "wet blanket" ... (sarcasm) Well written and right on. Democrats

have their own version of Dreamers...I especially like "soul-grabbing darlings". Does anyone know of a PAC that has set up for Ms. Warren? Anything? Hired political handlers and media experts? No? Maybe it's because She Isn't Running, not even to accommodate the poor souls who lay awake nights with visions of Sugar Plums attacking Hillary.

Go out there and find a real progressive candidate who can raise a billion dollars without any corporate funding. Otherwise, as they say, either get out ... or get in, shut up and hang on.

These "no..no..no..no..no" people and their tantrums are beginning to remind me of the GOP. We don't like your healthcare plan ...Sam We Are...but don't task us with providing any alternatives. Even Dr. Seuss is probably rolling in his grave.

[Vashta Nerada]

97. I support Warren. I'll never support HRC.

[Whisp]

100. This thing here:

''And those are only the aboveground assaults. As in 2008, Greater Hillaryland, if not the Clinton campaign itself, would quietly work to disqualify Warren as a crazed, countercultural liberal. A former Obama campaign aide recalls Clintonites planting stories in foreign newspapers, then watching them enter the domestic bloodstream through outlets like The Drudge Report. This appears to be how Obama’s dubious connection to former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers first gained widespread attention. “They were the kings of bank-shot press attention,” says the aide. “They were pitching stories domestic outlets would not cover . . . because the information they were peddling was so toxic.”

This is why I think that letter of support for Hillary Clinton, signed by Warren, is bogus bogus bogus. It's a Clinton Team Trick.

[heaven05]

101. I don't care

who in the Democratic Party runs as long as they have my retired, old veteran losing his home interests at heart. Oh never mind, never happen.

[L0oniX]

105. Silly DU. The next president will be one of the two that the 1% select as candidates.

[NorthCarolina]

145. Pretty much...

unfortunately. It does seem as though the people are powerless to change the direction of this country.

[paulk]

106. looks like the media is busy drumming up some controversy

something about a so called schism in the Democratic Party....

Already ginning up the storyline for 2016....

[gordianot]

109. Now that Republicans have adopted cannibalism why not also Democrats?

When this is so unnecessary let Republican prions go to work now, avoid the feast until after the 2014 midterm there will be plenty of time.

[warrior1]

113. I'm for the person who gets the nomination

chances are, if HRC runs she will win.

[phleshdef]

115. Warren isn't going to run.

[BrainDrain]

118. Once again....

If HRC was SUCH a shoe-in would we be having the kind of conversation? Obviously, the answer is no. HRC is a big-money/Wall Street tool. Most of us in the trenches saw this long ago, say around 2008.

So, in a nut-shell, she most certainly does NOT have it in the bag this time around either. Warren Buffet and big money donors aside, she definitely doesn't have the rank and file, person in the street vote at all.

Good luck trying to win the nomination with out it, much less the general.

[Whisp]

123. I wonder if it is a Warren/Clinton race...who the Obama Team would work for?

oooo, interesting. I would Say Warren, hands down. And Bill's head would explode. Again

[beachbum bob]

129. funny, I remember back in 2007 when obama

was dismissed, that HRC was as a shoe-in. We worked to get obama elected both times and my wife and i and our friends who did so much on the obama elections will gladly undertake the same for hillary. Don't fool yourself for one moment (and the others like you) that Elizebeth would stand a chance in the primaries non-the-less in a national election

if you want a republican to be elected in 2016, keep talking up people like warren.........we saw what nader and his people ended giving america in 2000

george w bush and the iraq war

nader and his people are more responsible for what happened to this country than any one else

[Enthusiast]

149. HRC is a big-money/Wall Street tool.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL][URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL][URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL][URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL][URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL][URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Peacetrain]

120. I do not see any nightmares

Who ever wins the primary.. wins the primary.. I am good with them all

[HenryWallace]

121. What is the lesson of the last six years?

A movement had better be more than its leader!

Hillary may be an imperfect vessel. However, the Presidency in 2016 and beyond will be defined by either the dawn of an new progressive era or the "correction" of the conservative movement.

We don't need Elizabeth Warren so much as we need fifty Elizabeth Warrens! They are out there, they're just not getting nominated or elected!

[libdem4life]

131. This is bordering on the most un-intellectual argument imaginable...arguing over, trying to force

someone to run (against the wishes of her family...as her own), who has no intention of doing so, has one of the most important jobs in the US...reining in the "banksters" and doing a great job of it. Right.

Let's "force" her to run...drag her family through 3 years of hell...disengage what she is the first to do, probably ever...speak truth to the cretins that have stolen billions and actually "get something done" like making them pay fines, stop their Scroogian antics...I could go on. She's exactly where she needs to be and serves her entire country in a way most Senators do not.

All this because of Democratic Hillary Derangement Syndrome.

Not. a. Good. Plan.

[NorthCarolina]

146. However, forcing another 4 or 8 years of triangulation down America's throat

is Not. Such. a. Good. Plan. either. I for one am not inclined to vote to continue the status quo with another Clinton.

[libdem4life]

152. Not sure what "triangulation" you are talking about, but do recall that she is a Rodham and that

the surname Clinton was forced upon her by the RWers and the PC Police. And she doesn't exactly fit the role of Democratic Dittohead of her Husband.

So if we take away the perjorative...another Clinton...perhaps this is food for thought? And we've been a ways away from that other Clinton, the male, so does PBO fall within this triangulation argument?

Just when I was feeling so happy we didn't have a President Bush...silly me. We could have ramped up Iraq and Afghanistan and been slouching toward Iran by now to bring to pass the Gospel of Revelations or, while crusading against the gays with a Constitutional amendment or something.

But be my guest...pout and stay home. Let's hear it for President Cruz, or the "smart" Bush from the same Mama...what the heck. No triangulation in that equation???

That'll show 'em. Not.

[TalkingDog]

133. Signed into the crazy just to Rec this post.

Will not vote for Hill.
Will vote for E.

[Whisp]

135. Is Hillary Clinton Too Cozy With Wall Street?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-11/is-hillary-clinton-too-cozy-with-wall-street

Is Hillary Clinton Too Cozy With Wall Street?

Elizabeth Warren has not expressed interest, at least publicly, in running for president any time soon. But if she did, how much would the Massachusetts senator hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the White House?

That is the question that Noam Scheiber poses in the New Republic. The answer may turn on Warren and Clinton’s relationships and attitudes toward Wall Street, which couldn’t be more different.

Warren is no friend of the big banks. She criticized Wall Street’s excesses even before her appointment in 2008 as head of the Congressional Oversight Panel overseeing the TARP bailout program, when she managed to make enemies in both the Treasury Department and the financial sector. “I can’t think of anyone I’m afraid of,” she told me at the time.

[RBInMaine]

136. Problem is, she is NOT RUNNING and HAS ALREADY ENDORSED HILLARY.

[reddread]

142. what endorsement?

you dont think that a secret letter allegedly encouraging a sister senator to run equals an endorsement, do you?
this long lead time hard push to proclaim Hillary as the slow moving, deliberate possible candidate while she makes her own
events and wrangles C-SPAN time blowing her own horn while her PR agents tell stories about how slow she is taking things?
Lets see what kind of legs she is standing on in two years.
Who will Jeb use as a running mate anyway?
He is the sure thing, she is not.

[NorthCarolina]

147. Well, truth is Warren would be silly to express interest this far out.

Would give the small "d" third-wayers too much time to spin their anti-Warren BS. Better to keep them guessing for as long as possible. But, never say never!

[vlakitti]

138. There was an encouraging observation

midway through the article:


"If Warren were to challenge Clinton, the contours of the campaign
would be fairly obvious. ..[Clinton] would move left on as many issues
as possible. Since leaving the State Department, she has already
staked out liberal ground on gay rights and voting rights, and she
recently used the word “progressive” so many times in a single speech
it was tempting to describe her condition as “severe.....”"

So there's little downside for the near future. It keeps the Administration from messing with Social Security and the like, keeps Congress from capitulating to the catfooders and the Ryanites, and moves the Democratic Party discussion smartly to the left. Terrific!

[ZRT2209]

139. If the choice is Hillary or Chris Christie, please don't choose Chris Christie bc you want Warren

[NorthCarolina]

148. If the third-way Wall St. Dems force Hillary on us, America looses anyway.

In the big picture.

[Hestia]

140. This is a very telling paragraph:

This is what the banking industry and its Republican allies (as well as internal opponents like Geithner) didn’t fully appreciate when they effectively killed Warren’s hopes of permanently heading the consumer agency in 2011. Anyone who knows Warren will tell you she had no particular ambition to be a senator. She decided that the Senate would suffice as a way to agitate for her issues only when Obama stiffed her for the CFPB job—an enormous disappointment after she spent months lining up support among banks. “It’s poetic justice. At end of the day, if the banking community hadn’t been so apoplectic, everyone could have decided it’s this little tiny agency, who really cares?” says Anita Dunn, Obama’s White House communications director in 2009. “Instead, she ends up as a senior senator from Massachusetts on the banking committee, blocking Larry at the Fed.”

[Hestia]

141. Good grief. Why does this not surprise me:

And those are only the above ground assaults. As in 2008, Greater Hillaryland, if not the Clinton campaign itself, would quietly work to disqualify Warren as a crazed, counter cultural liberal. A former Obama campaign aide recalls Clintonites planting stories in foreign newspapers, then watching them enter the domestic bloodstream through outlets like The Drudge Report. This appears to be how Obama’s dubious connection to former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers first gained widespread attention. “They were the kings of bank-shot press attention,” says the aide. “They were pitching stories domestic outlets would not cover . . . because the information they were peddling was so toxic.”

[seveneyes]

143. Bernie Sanders may be the more experienced choice

Much more experienced in the political sense of things to consider.

[NorthCarolina]

150. He or Warren would have my most ENTHUSIASTIC support. nt

[SlipperySlope]

154. K&R

The more press Elizabeth Warren gets the better.

[marlakay]

155. I would campaign for Warren

But would vote for either her or Hillary. I think many of us feel that way.

[libdem4life]

157. Even if she wanted to run, which she doesn't, I don't see how she could do more to help the

country stave off the "banksters" than she is doing. PBO can't do that even if he wanted to.

I love Elizabeth and have watched her career with pride as another of the female gender. But to ask her, yeah demand, she leave it all behind on some wild goose chase to fulfill some anti-Hillary sentiments? She's too smart for that. She's a policy wonk...and a great one...not really an ideologue and is even a repentant Republican turned Democrat?

Imagine what would happen to all of her work and influence and guidance and power not only in the Senate, but within the back offices of Chase et al, if she were to shift focus. Yes, if she announced tomorrow she was "running"...quitting her job and presumably the Senate to roam America, willing to be ridiculed by TP/RWers, expose her family to same, clamoring for votes 3 years from now, it would be Party Time. Her work would go down the tubes.

I'm tiring of the Love-Hate...Either-Or...Up-Down...Black-White...Clinton-Warren axes. We can have both of these formidable women...and in positions they have fought for, earned and excel therein.

[RagAss]

161. I yawn with respect....n/t

[Doctor_J]

164. recent reading of du tells me this won't be a problem.

The current dc dems have sucked the soul out of the party. We are far to the right of where the republicans were when Reagan was in office, and that is just fine with a big chunk of du.

[Whisp]

168. and who pulled the tiller to the right since Reagan?

I think there was only one 'democrat' President (cough) that succeeded in that respect. And now his wife wants to succeed even more in that direction.

If anyone thinks Obama was a rightwad, hold onto your shorts and beer mug if the Inevitable Comes.

[Norrin Radd]

170. kr