About these infernal Hillary versus Liz kerfluffles--

[Jackpine Radical]

I've been flying a Warren banner around here for some time. And ya know what?

For me, at the most fundamental level, it's not about Warren. Nor about Hillary. It's not about personalities at all.

It's about the progressive versus the corporate side of the party. Liz Warren may even not turn out to be the best representative of my style of progressive populism.

Right now, though, she's the one standing up to the bankers; she's the one speaking out for an expansion of Social Security. She seems to better express my views, and in particular my views on economic policy, at this point than anyone else on the national scene.

Right now, her name symbolizes those views. It's sort of like a shorthand. If she doesn't run, and someone else comes along, espouses true liberal principles and appears electable, I'll get off the Warren wagon in an instant to support that person. Just right now, though, I don't see who that person might be. I don't think it's Biden.

[monmouth3]

1. I've been reading a lot about Martin O'Malley and like him a lot. I have to worry I'm not being

prejudiced about him though. He's smart, handsome, has a band, and is an all-round guy. I'd like to see more discussions about him, I think he's a contender..

[Jackpine Radical]

2. At this stage, he has zero name recognition--

but we all kn ow how fast that can change.

After all who had heard of Sarah Palin in 2005?

[rhett o rick]

5. Using Sarah the Tarah as an example is not fair-a (sorry). Sarah's warm homebody

lifestyle seemed to be just what the Republican Media wanted. I think she was signed for a reality show and playboy cover in her first couple of weeks.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. (Un)fair enough. Another example--

Most people had no clue about Obama in 2005. I did, but only because I live in a neighboring state & have politically aware relatives in Chicago.

[rhett o rick]

9. That's a better example. But I think my point is (never sure) that some big money has to like you

get that quick fame. They dont choose progressives.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. I've always said that Obama is the furthest-left President

we are allowed to have.

But Liz is getting famous in spite of the Big Money; she's even getting famous by attacking it. This must really set their teeth on edge.

[rhett o rick]

15. I agree. I also think they thought he would totally fall on his face, of course with the help of

the Corp-Media and the obstructionists. Bottom line is that they might not let us have that "progressive" of a candidate again.

It's worth it to The Powers To Be to actually steal elections and/or neutralize any progressive candidate that might get popular.

How ironic would it be for HRC to enjoy the fruits of Citizen's United to win the primary. But TPTB will try harder to get a Republican elected. They let us have a Democratic president to "appease" our outrage over Boy Bush and the lost decade. The pitch will be, "See a Democrat didnt save the country, so let's try a Republican."

[Jackpine Radical]

16. I think Big Money is OK with Hill.

The only issues on which she differs from the "mainstream" Republicans (as opposed to Teabaggers) have to do with "social issues" like abortion & LGBT rights, about which Big Money could give a shit. For that matter, those Wall Street Democrats probly agree with her (and us) on the issues.

[rhett o rick]

17. I dont disagree. We will be able to tell what their strategy is

when they reveal their Republican candidate. In 2008, the McCain and Palin choice should have been a dead give-away that they weren't serious about a Republican president. Not a lot different with the clowns they allowed to run for the REpublican nomination. I think if TPTB choose Jeb or Christie, they might try for the Republican win with heavy backing for HRC just in case. All stops will be pulled to prevent Sen Warren from winning the D nomination.

[Jackpine Radical]

18. It may be that their game is just to scotch anyone on the left, and then

leave the results to shake out as they will among the Approved List in both parties.

They put a lot into taking down "Earthtone Al" Gore, the sighing hero of Love Canal who invented the Internet, and then still had to engineer FL to deprive him of office. They zapped Dean early. Edwards had so many flaws they could have taken him down at any point. Among Clinton, Obama & the 2008 model of the Republican Clown Car, they didn't much care, as long as it was a Corporate Guy. In 2012, more or less ditto, as long as it wasn't someone as loony as Santorum or as mind-bogglingly stupid as Hermie.

In summary, Obama & Hill made the Acceptable list a long time ago.

[rhett o rick]

19. Agreed. The left has no other choice than to run with Sen Warren in 2016.

It might be too early for her best chance, but we cant wait, we cant just give up 2016. Name recognition is essential and the Corp-Media isnt going to help. Sen Warren has a head start there over other possible candidates like Sen Wyden. An exception might be Rep Grayson.

[karynnj]

20. Even party favorites - like the man given the 1988 keynote speech, Bill Clinton,

had low name recognition 3 years before he ran - and won - and became a household name.

Some that I had heard of 3 years before, I heard of in very different context. I knew Dean was Governor of Vermont and a doctor - mostly because we vacationed there every summer. Of course, like most my age, the image when I heard the name John Kerry - was that of a 27 year old, with lots of very dark hair, who eloquently, patriotically and morally spoke out before the SFRC.

However, the media after NH was clearly leaning for a super Tuesday victory for the man they called "Bill Clinton without the bimbo eruptions" and who they referred to as "sunny". Their coverage was so optimistic, happy and positive - compared to the completely unenthusiastic coverage of Kerry. Had he been more impressive in the debates or in person, he might have become President - even though only a wonk (or a North Carolinian) would have heard of him 3 years out.

The really good thing about NH and Iowa is that they CAN be won by a candidate with less money, party support and less media hype. In spite of revisionist history - it happened in 2004 - where Kerry had so little money he had to loan his campaign the money, and he had less party support and a media that had not like him since 1971! A more accepted example is Jimmy Carter.

This time it may not happen. Imagine the guts and conviction in oneself that it would take to spend most of 2014 and 2016 campaigning in Iowa and NH and raising enough money to be viable even in those states. Most people can not loan their campaigns $6 million as Kerry did. It may well be that almost all big Democratic donors will back HRC from the get go. However, as 2008 shows, surprises can happen.

[JimDandy]

3. My sentiments exactly. n/t

[djean111]

4. Agree whole-heartedly.

It is not so much Warren as it is what she seems to stand for, what she speaks out on.
This has nothing to do with feminism, either. It has everything to do with trying to at least slow down the Democratic Party's movement to the Right.

[Vincardog]

8. I don' want to "slow down" the Democratic Party's movement to the Right I want to REVERSE it.

[Scuba]

10. +1,000

[Vincardog]

7. I agree, the "inevitable" chorus sill not agree. IMO

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. I prefer infernal "kerfuffle" versus "kerfluffle" kerfuffles. Interminable ones, too.

[Demo_Chris]

12. Rec! And no, it aint Biden. nt

[xchrom]

13. du rec.

[socialist_n_TN]

21. Well that's because you're concerned with ISSUES Jack.........

not personalities. That's what a lot of folks don't understand. It doesn't matter if Warren was a Republican 20 years ago or that Hillary was a Republican 40 years ago, it matters what they believe (or really what they say they believe because we can't know until they're elected) NOW. When somebody supports a candidate because they're "electable" or "inevitable" IN SPITE OF SAID CANDIDATES STANDS ON ISSUES, that's counterproductive towards changing policies.