Hillary has more than 200 economic advisors. Why doesn't Warren?

[MannyGoldstein]

Let me start by stating that Howard Fineman, currently editorial director of the Huffington Post and former Chief Political Correspondent at Newsweek, is the most despicable "journalist" working today. I have no idea of why that's true, but I'm sure that after I write this piece, some helpful DUers will come along to tell us. (And to point out that it's very telling that I chose to air his views on DU.)

OK, so I was just listening to a really interesting podcast of On Point, a great NPR program that comes out of Boston.

Democratic Soul-Searching In 2016

The host, Tom Asbhrook, spent 45 minutes discussing our Democratic Party's agita* with a panel that included Fineman, the campaign manager of Ready for Warren, and one of the founders of the DLC.

It was a hoot.

Fineman mentioned that Our Next President™ has more than 200 economic advisors, which he said sounds great until one realizes it means that she has no particular idea of her own as to the right way forward, i.e., she's totally flailing. Totally stumped. Which is why we aren't hearing from her.

As to the current agitation by us pesky "Progressives" in any way slowing Our Next President™ in her quest to gain that which is rightfully hers, the DLC woman said that it would be totally unfair to associate Hillary with policies that happened 25 years ago: times are different now and so is Our Next President™! That got the verbal equivalent of an eye roll from the host (who does that maybe once a month), and Fineman indicated that it seemed implausible that Our Next President™ could be credible as a non-DLCThirdWayer, because that's what she is.



Of course, things quickly devolved into a discussion of Hillary vs. Warren. The DLC woman said that none of this Progressive crap matters anyway because Hillary and Warren would do the same same things as President. Finemen wasn't buying it, at all: he said that Warren was about going after a system that's corrupt to the core and which needs to be blown to smithereens and rebuilt, whereas Hillary was basically OK with the way things are - maybe a few changes, but nothing fundamental.

That's it. That's exactly the difference.

Now Fineman wasn't at all sure that Warren could get the thing done. And he was in no way discounting her running for President, he seemed to think there was a reasonable chance that it would happen. But here's the thing: you could tell he was sick of the status quo, sick of the limitless corruption that has replaced the souls of both political parties. And you can tell that he sees Warren as the light that might lead us out of this bottomless shit-filled pit we've been sinking into.

So that's the question, fellow DUers: do we have a system that's basically good and needs a few little tweaks? Or do we need to tear the roof off the sucker?

If you think the former, then Hillary's your candidate. But if you think we need change, real change, then you're Ready for Someone Else™.

============

*This agita doesn't actually exist, as we're also about to be told. Only a few malcontents on DU, maybe one other on Kos.

[bigwillq]

1. That's because Hillary ate them all.

[QuestionAlways]

44. The real problem

So that's the question, fellow DUers: do we have a system that's basically good and needs a few little tweaks? Or do we need to tear the roof off the sucker?

If you think the former, then Hillary's your candidate. But if you think we need change, real change, then you're Ready for Someone Else™

So who is this someone else, since every day it seems to be more apparent, that Sen. Warren is not running. Or do you prefer to see a Republican in the WH?

And maybe HRC is listening to a number of viewpoints to educate herself as to what is the best and most realistic thing that can be done to repair the economy and lessen inequality. Wisdom is knowing that perhaps you do not know.

[Fumesucker]

64. You cannot serve two masters

Hillary's 200 advisers are desperately trying to craft a message that will simultaneously play in Peoria and not hurt the exquisitely fragile fee fees of the plutocrats who have all that lovely lovely money.

[sabrina 1]

105. Are you seriously saying that a country like this has only ONE person who can run for office anymore

Doesn't that alone tell you what is wrong here?

What you are really saying, only ONE Democrat can get the $billion from special interest big donors to make it possible for her to run!!

[rhett o rick]

142. Funny how you are pointing out the exact problem. You make it clear that we really don't have a

choice but H.Clinton-Sachs or another Bush. And you think the solution is to elect H. Clinton-Sachs. What? We need to change the system. We need a progressive. H. Clinton-Sachs is close friends with the Bushes and agrees with them on a lot of policy issues. She even turned her back on the Democratic Party to help the Bushes and their IWar. She helped them promulgate the lies. She has zero integrity.

[11 Bravo]

134. Or perhaps after killing Vince Foster, she had a few bullets left.

Yeah, that must be it.

[pintobean]

156. Jury results

On Fri Feb 20, 2015, 12:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Or perhaps after killing Vince Foster, she had a few bullets left.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6249620

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Conspiracy Theory crap about Clinton murdering Vince Foster. We're not RedState, this doesn't need to be seen on site.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 20, 2015, 12:53 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the Alerter. El Bryanto
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Maybe I'm misreading this, but to me it sounds like satire??
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Eh.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's sarcasm.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's fucking sarcasm, good grief. Calm down.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I was #6

[11 Bravo]

158. Thanks for the heads up. And though it shouldn't need ...

to be said, OF COURSE IT WAS FUCKING SARCASM!

[TDale313]

2. The status quo is not sustainable.

Unless we see fundamental economic changes there will be no middle class. Seriously, those not at the top have been drowning for the last 30+ years. It's gonna take more than window dressing.

[DeSwiss]

62. !

- That's what many don't seem to understand. We can't afford her. We don't have time to waste.

[NYC_SKP]

3. We need to tear the roof off the sucker!!!

K/R

[daleanime]

14. Amen....

[Octafish]

92. Wall Street Pays Bankers to Work in Government and It Doesn't Want Anyone to Know

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120967/wall-street-pays-bankers-work-government-and-wants-it-secret

[rhett o rick]

140. It's time for CHANGE, and not Obama change, but real change. nm

[winter is coming]

4. Tear it down to the studs. Fresh wallpaper won't get the job done. n/t

[hedda_foil]

13. Tsk, tsk Manny. That's our next GREAT president or our great next president.

Hilary is our great next GREAT president and don't you forget it. Fineman works at the Huffington Post, and you know what we think of that rag. How dare they insinuate that our great next GREAT president might not be Her Greatness.

[msongs]

5. since clinton is not a declared candidate she has no obligation to say what fineman wants to hear.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Was that suggested?

His thinking was that if she had something to say, she'd be saying it.

[DonCoquixote]

46. then if she is not a declared candidate

does that mean we can stop talking about her as the frontrunner, or holding funds that could go for others in anticpation of Hillary running?

She cannot have her cake and eat it too.

[Vincardog]

131. Bingo. I for one am glad top hear she is not going to run. Let the search for a populist candidate

Last edited Wed Feb 25, 2015, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Begin.

Thank DOG that HRC has decided to do the right thing for our party and country.

[Agschmid]

6. It was a good episode of On Point I listen to it today as well...

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Tom seemed particularly full of spark

It was fun to listen!

[SheilaT]

7. My first reaction, upon hearing she has 200 economic advisors, is that

that's far too many to be useful. She can't really be listening to all of them. If they have vastly different opinions, how does she decide between them? How can she prioritize?

It also suggests to me that she has no personal acquaintance with economics herself, which is quite scary.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. I figured she was basically paying them off

to keep 'em away from the other candidates.

[zeemike]

16. I just assumed they were also her donors from Wall Street.

I mean really, who know more about the economy than a Wall Street mogul?
The one who makes the most from trading people out of money is the one you listen to.

[SheilaT]

31. All I can think is, Why bother?

[winter is coming]

19. My guess is that we're supposed to think she's consulted a wide array

of "experts" and listened to everyone, although that's unlikely.

[JDPriestly]

33. She is flattering and wooing them, not listening to them. Each of them is thinking he or she

might possibly be picked for some role in a Clinton administration. That is one of the politicians oldest tricks when seeking supporters.

[Katashi_itto]

73. So she is good at pandering. So she will say anything to get elected.

Is what your saying.

Yes that's trustworthy. Glad I am not voting for this person, regardless.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. Does that mean I can have your ticket to the coronation ceremony? I need extras.

[Katashi_itto]

82. Sure, knock yourself out.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Thanks! (I'm scalpin' em to raise $ for Ready for Elizabeth.)

[Katashi_itto]

84. +1000

[sendero]

74. I assume...

... that most of them are what normal people would call "lobbyists".

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. Perhaps she is using an academic approach to problem solving ...

you pose a question(s) ... have as many academics answer the question(s), providing the research supportive of their answer. The you have the academics critique each other's responses ... winnowing the responses down to the best, i.e., most support by the research and least vulnerable to unanswerable criticism, answer.

That seems prudent and forward thinking to me ... especially 18 months before you have to talk about your answer to the question(s).

[SheilaT]

108. Hmm. That does sound quite rational and reasonable,

and if she's doing that, well good for her. But why do I think she's simply trying to corner the market in economic advisers so that no one else will have any?

[1StrongBlackMan]

111. Cornering the market in economic advisors? ...

Last edited Thu Feb 19, 2015, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

First, there are (literally) hundreds of thousands of economist in this nations, and millions, world-wide (and that is just those that are left-leaning).

Secondly, I suspect there is a great deal of overlap among those advising HRC and those advising others.

[SheilaT]

125. I do appreciate your injecting a note of sanity

here. And no, I'm not being sarcastic or snarky. Sometimes I don't think as clearly as I should.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. Sometimes ...

when hair is lit on fire, others' hair catches, too.

And make no mistake, someone is sitting back in a lawn chair, smoking a cigar and with a gas can at his/her feet.

[Joe Turner]

8. Burn the Third Way House Down

Warren best espouses traditional Democratic values. Hillary is just more of the same. And everybody knows it.

[randys1]

101. And if a con prez appoints a SC justice who overturns Roe, why do I care, I am not a Woman

[Ed Suspicious]

12. What makes the DLC'ers think that Mrs. Clinton will be able to deliver? I see very little drop-off

in puke opposition to the candidate who has been a puke dog whistle for 25 years. If they think she'll have an easier go of it than the current president they're just plain wrong. I think Warren is under-estimateable and she will hold the attention to some degree of the far right, the point where the far right and far left meet, at the bank, is exactly where Warren can find success.

[Agnosticsherbet]

15. Warren isn't running for President.

[Ed Suspicious]

17. So you say. Exactly what she said. She in no way closed the door on running for president.

That's not pony wanting either. That's her response to the direct question and the rephrase that asked about the tense of her reply. She has not denied a future presidential run. Her words taken at face value say as much.

[Agnosticsherbet]

21. “Hope springs eternal in the human breast;

Man never Is, but always To be blest.
The soul, uneasy, and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.”


― Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man

[Ed Suspicious]

23. Her words to the question "Will you run for president?" "I AM not running for president."

Not into all that hope-y change-y stuff?

[Agnosticsherbet]

47. I agree, she is not running in 2016. She is a dman good Senator.

I intend to vote and work to the limits of my ability to make sure she has a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President. if we do it right, there may even be a Democratic House, though that is a bit harder.

[1StrongBlackMan]

109. Okay ...

So how is her running in 2020, or beyond, relevant to this discussion?

[winter is coming]

20. Her ideas are. Whether or not there's any candidate at the debates

who shares her views, I don't see how Hillary can escape being asked about them.

[JDPriestly]

35. Not yet. But if the support for her continues to build, she may. I could say even, will.

Read her book before you count her out.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. Elizabeth will run, Hillary can "bank" on it.

[DonCoquixote]

50. you know what would be funny

If clinton decidced not to run and said "I never declared I was running." That would make heads explode.

[Vattel]

18. What a concept! We could elect a president that actually has some expertise

in an area that he or she will be making vital decisions about. Why haven't we thought of doing this before?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. Why bother when poll-testing can instruct Hillary what triangulated positions to take.

[SoapBox]

22. If it's Clinton vs. Bush...

She will lose.

Both are beyond distasteful but she has been more in the "public" eye over the years and past baggage will be used against her by the Pukes and Baggers. Dems will hide in the corners, afraid to support her OR to speak out against Jebbie.

America may be over Bushes but they will be more over another Clinton.

[Dragonfli]

26. There is one way out for their shared financial backers, a way past gridlock that will help

Those that really matter, those with the money to benefit greatly from both at the expense of those haters and bashers that need to learn their place as they knew them in feudal times

For a return to the greatness of a time before our lords and ladies had to pretend to care about the masses of scum:

[SheilaT]

37. If it's Clinton vs any Republican she will probably lose.

What frightens me so very much about The Inevitability of Hillary is that those who think she's inevitable just don't get it. They absolutely do not get how very hated she is outside a relatively small circle of Democrats. I keep on hearing the argument that she's bullet-proof because everything that could hurt her was brought up in the 2008 campaign and has been dealt with, and so isn't important any more. To which I say, What about Benghazi? That was not brought up in 2008, and yes, I know it's complete and utter crap, but it will be used in a way that will make the Swift Boat thing look like a love fest.

Within the Democratic Party there is a very strong longing for a woman President. It's even stronger now that we've had our first African American President. To be hones, in any poll taken ten or more years ago, most people would have thought we'd have had a woman President well before an African American President, so in a way there's payback here. And as a woman, I'd love to see a woman President. At age 66 I'm old enough to remember how we women couldn't win, not ever. I saw women being systematically excluded from jobs or promotions just because of their gender. I saw women losing jobs in a layoff so that men could keep them. In an industry where seniority was EVERYTHING, I saw a woman furloughed because she was pregnant, and a woman with less seniority retained.

So yes, I'd love to see a woman President. But it can't be a woman just because she has the correct genitalia. She also needs to support the things I support. Women's issues. Very clear cut choice issues. And she needs to be on the side of working families, against the oligarchy, fully supportive of some sort of universal health care, free or very low cost higher education. She has to understand the choices that most women have to make regarding family and work. Jobs need to be structured so that parents, regardless of gender, can take care of their kids, not assume there's a stay-at-home mom who will handle everything.

It does not feel as though Hillary Clinton gets any of that. It feels as if she's a basic corporate man, the kind who always had a wife at home, who handled everything so that he could concentrate on work. It makes me wonder just what were the child care arrangements when Chelsea was growing up. I wonder if there were nannies, who are wonderful people in their own right, but it would mean that Hillary has no real clue what's involved in raising a child.

On a personal note, I was a stay at home mom. It was what I wanted and I'm very glad I got to do it. My own mother worked most of my life, and I spent my growing up years taking care of my younger brothers and sisters. I was very aware of the financial necessity, and the experience certainly gave me an independence that was invaluable. And I would NEVER suggest that all women should stay at home. Some simply don't like that situation. Others have careers they genuinely love, and would rather be at work than doing the (sometimes) boring tasks of child raising. All that said, I don't think Hillary Clinton has an actual connection to the real decisions and lives of most mothers, whether they get to stay home full time or are in the work force. The vast majority of mothers (again, whether at home or in the work force) have limited choices and very limited money in their lives.

The real shame, in the end, is that whoever is elected President is always a person of the 1%. Those in the 99%, and most especially all those below the 90%, are simply not represented at the upper levels.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. "They absolutely do not get how very hated she is outside a relatively small circle of Democrats."

Is that why she handily defeats all her Democratic challengers, ergo

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh16dem.htm

I'm not as intelligent as the denizens of this board but do voters routinely say they will vote for someone they hate?

" It makes me wonder just what were the child care arrangements when Chelsea was growing up. I wonder if there were nannies, who are wonderful people in their own right, but it would mean that Hillary has no real clue what's involved in raising a child."


Wow, so now she's a bad mom. FYI, the governor of Arkansas made $35,000.00 a year at the time. It would seem difficult to hire a nannie on that salary though. I am glad you were privileged enough to be a stay at home mom. In my working class neighborhood all my friend's moms worked. In fact my mom had two jobs. My pop died when I was fourteen.

[SheilaT]

71. You are distorting what I said. I honestly have no idea what her child care arrangements were.

So I leave them open to conjecture or establishment.

I will still say that people here just do not understand how hated she is outside a very small Democratic establishment. Outside a particular Democratic circle (which sort of includes DU) she is not that widely admired. There is a very large amount of name recognition, which shows up in recent polls But name recognition is not at all the same as approval. And that's the huge problem we face.

Hillary Clinton has huge name recognition. There is no doubt about that. But actual genuine approval? I think that's much less. Out there in what we might kindly call The Great Unwashed there seems to be huge enthusiasm for her. But that's because those people are actually what we can kindly call low information voters. I recently had a conversation with my sister and her grown daughter, and they both expressed huge enthusiasm for Hillary. It was scary to me, because I did not have the time to educate them, to try to make them see that Hillary is not the best possible candidate. My sister had been an enthusiastic Hillary supporter in 2008, and we had a very divisive conversation that year. She seemed to think that it was perfectly okay that Hillary's campaign continued far beyond what I saw as reasonable, well beyond the point when it was clear she could not possibly win the nomination. I don't think she actually knew the tern PUMA, but she was clearly one of those.

Now, nearly eight years later, she still sighs wistfully for a Hillary Clinton. She doesn't think at all about what might have changed in the years since, she doesn't care at all that Hillary's advisers hark back some 25 years to the Bill Clinton Presidency. All she knows is that a woman might become President

And she's not alone. Many good Democrats are just like my sister. Some of them feel cheated that Hillary didn't get the nomination in 2008,, and they're determined it won't happen again this time. And therein lies the problem. Hillary Clinton is NOT the candidate for 2016 for very many reasons. First off, she is a candidate of the past and does not bring a single new idea to the table.

She's also old. I'm sorry but she looks old and behaves old. Elizabeth Warren is only a year or so younger, but she looks and acts like someone a decade or more younger.

Hillary brings NOTHING new to the table. No new ideas. Definitely no new people. Why in the world would we be considering her? A Democratic Party that nominates her is stuck in the past, and nothing can gloss over that.

And that is why I'm so terrified of the Hillary is Wonderful and she will be the Perfect Candidate faction. They are wrong. Pure and simple. They are wrong, and the truly terrifying thing is that they may not understand it until they lose the 2016 election, and even then they won't get it but will blame it on outside forces.

I feel as if I'm crying out in the wilderness, and no one will understand until it's far too late.

[Carolina]

97. "Is that why she handily defeats all her Democratic challengers..."

Really, ya think that will hold?

She was inevitable in 2008 and demonstrated her leadership skills (or lack thereof) by the horrendous management of her primary campaign.

She said then that she was "in it to win it... and it will be over early." But when Super Tuesday proved her wrong, she resorted to kitchen sink tactics against her Democratic opponent while lavishing kudos on John McCain! She remained in the campaign despite losing and despite racking up debt because she had wasted so much of her formidable campaign chest. And then the straw that broke the camel's back for the Democratic Party leadership was her holding out to the California primary and saying (paraphrased): "you never know... remember Bobby Kennedy."

After gracelessly bowing out, she wanted -- as one of her conditions for bowing out -- Obama to pay off her campaign debt.

This is damn good leadership, good management?!!! You screw up and then want someone else to bail you out... sounds a lot like Wall Street which is quite appropriate.

HRC is a corporatist who still counts that loser Larry Summers as one of her financial advisors. She was a founding member of the now-gone-in-name-only DLC and remains Third Way all the way. She has no political courage or backbone as demonstrated long ago (2002)by her finger in the political wind vote for IWR (giving Bush bi-partisan cover for his ilk's PNAC dream). And yes, she is hated outside the Beltway. In fact, she will galvanize the GOP and their troglodyte supporters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. Stop moving the goalposts.

The poster said ""They absolutely do not get how very hated she is outside a relatively small circle of Democrats."

I absolutely undermined that assertion with facts. No logical person can rationally dispute that. I left that assertion in tatters.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

-John Adams

Res ipsa loquitur:

[Carolina]

168. You really don't get It

HRC is not inevitable and she is no good.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

169. I never said she was inevitable but thank you for your opinion...

I will give it the weight it is worth.

[sabrina 1]

110. Yes, dems will say 'yes' to a dem, no matter how much they oppose that Dems policies if the choice

the Dem or a Republican.

When only one Dem is being pushed as Hillary is, it leaves Dems with little choice when polsters call them.

Put her up against Sherrod Brown eg, and poll Dems on that choice.

But we are being given one choice. Why is that? Is the Dem Party so bereft of good Dems that they can turn to only ONE when it comes to elections?

I think we all know the reason for this. She is the only one who can raise the millions from the Top Donors and other Special Interests who are not going to support an FDR, working class Candidate.

And what does that say about our electoral system?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

112. The poster said

"They absolutely do not get how very hated she is outside a relatively small circle of Democrats."


I merely disabused her of that notion:

[LondonReign2]

115. You seem to think that chart helps your argument

I read that favorability amongst independents line, i.e., the swing voters, and think just the opposite

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. Did you also consider the republican line? ...

a 21% favorability rating among republicans is huge, especially when combined with the 49% among Independents.

[LondonReign2]

119. Does the Republican line matter?

Republicans are not going to vote for Hillary in any greater numbers than Republicans ever vote for Democrats. And if Republicans cross over to vote for Hillary based on her policies we have a whole other problem.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. Did Londonreign consider Barack Obama was reelected in 2012 while losing the independent vote...

Did Londonreign consider Barack Obama was reelected in 2012 while losing the independent vote by turning out the Democratic base?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

118. I don't have an argument in this instance

I just disabused my interlocutor of the notion "They absolutely do not get how very hated she is outside a relatively small circle of Democrats."

Res ipsa loquitur:







BTW-Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 while losing the independent vote by turning out the base Democratic vote.

[Ed Suspicious]

114. This is the key nugget.

"But we are being given one choice. Why is that? Is the Dem Party so bereft of good Dems that they can turn to only ONE when it comes to elections?

I think we all know the reason for this. She is the only one who can raise the millions from the Top Donors and other Special Interests who are not going to support an FDR, working class Candidate."

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. But that is not what the polling shows ...

that poll measures favorability ... not favorability relative to a specific or generic republican candidate.

There are polls that measures HRC against both specific and generic republicans (asked of a representative sampling) and HRC fairs well.

There are also polls of Democrats measuring HRC against specific Democratic (potential) challengers (including Sherrod Brown)... she also polls well.

[sabrina 1]

129. She fares well with Republicans? Well, she worked hard enough to get their approval on

our forever wars and on Wall St etc. I wondered when they would realize she was no enemy of their policies.

Then let Republicans elect her.

It doesn't speak well of her imo, that she has won the approval of Republicans.

[1StrongBlackMan]

130. That's not what I said ...

HRC fairs well in the polls against republicans, i.e., she holds a significant polling lead against both the generic republican candidate and in head up races against each specific republican.

[winter is coming]

133. OTOH, if she did run as Republican, they'd have a candidate who can speak

complete sentences, which would certainly up the level of discourse in the general.

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. Not only that ...

but HRC handily defeats all of her republican challengers, as well.

[Logical]

141. LOL, it is early. And remember 2008 when she had a 30 point lead? nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

143. Yes ...

And it turned out well, I might say.

[Logical]

144. I would take him for four more years! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. "If it's Clinton vs. Bush.... She will lose."

Well, that's a theory in search of evidence.

Who did Jeb Bush ever beat?

He lost an election to Lawton Chiles and unconvincingly beat Buddy McKay and Alex Sink's husband.

[winter is coming]

53. I have no idea who would come out on top in that match-up.

It would likely come down to which campaign made more blunders.

[rosesaylavee]

24. Ha!

Great post. Thank you.

As an aside, I am glad that someone else sees eye rolls when listening to the radio.

[moondust]

25. But is 200 enough?

I trust they're all at least multibillionaires since everybody knows that more personal wealth = more economics expertise and thus more yachts for everybody!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Normally, no

But one of 'em is...

[moondust]

30. Kings!!!!

Finally. We'z all gonna be KINGS!!!!!

[AtomicKitten]

29. Not if you stack them vertically.

If you place them head to toe, they'll reach all the way to Wall Street.

[moondust]

95. Yes, yes. A footbridge!

Brilliant!

[babylonsister]

27. Ugh. Seriously? As an outsider, because

that's too many people . WTF, Manny?

[sheshe2]

43. Lol~

FYI, NPR became a RW station some time ago. I stopped listening when On Point lost the Point~

NPR's New Boss: Financial Industry Lobbyist, GOP Donor, Right-Wing Think Tank Booster

The NPR press release (9/13/13) states that Haaga's "accomplished career" included a stint as "chairman of the Investment Company Institute"–the powerful lobbying group of the mutual fund industry. As the Los Angeles Times (11/29/03) once reported, "Mutual funds have been mostly shielded from the reforms forced on the financial world–thanks in large part to the efforts of the Investment Company Institute."

NPR also adds that Haaga has ties to right-wing think tanks–he is "a member of the National Council of the American Enterprise Institute" and he sits on "the Board of Overseers of Hoover Institution at Stanford University."

Haaga is also a fairly regular contributor to Republican politicians. According to OpenSecrets.org, this year he made a $32,400 donation to the Republican National Committee; in the previous two years, he made contributions of around $30,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee. He's also given four-figure checks to a large number of mostly Republican candidates, including Rep. Paul Ryan, George Allen and Mitch McConnell.

So the new boss–for now–at NPR is a former financial industry lobbyist who is a regular donor to Republican politicians, with ties to two prominent conservative think tanks. When NPR finds a new boss, he'll continue to be a member of NPR's board.



Read More http://fair.org/blog/2013/09/17/nprs-new-boss-financial-industry-lobbyist-gop-donor-right-wing-think-tank-booster/

[littlemissmartypants]

32. Oh, Manny.

I love you. You make me laugh.

I frequently enjoy reading your posts.

Why are you so hard on yourself?


Thank you,
lmsp

[aftab267]

34. Hillary has more than 200 economic advisors. Why doesn't Warren?

This is a very effective article.

[fbc]

36. We just need someone who listens to Krugman, DeLong, Piketty, etc...

The issues that face us can be solved by listening to the experts that are always right instead of the "experts" who are always wrong.

[unblock]

38. because they're her students?

[DeSwiss]

39. K&R

[littlemissmartypants]

42. First read I saw ...

"Refreshments "

[DeSwiss]

58. HA!

[Ramses]

52. They seem to like to pile on new members too

and accuse them of false accusations. Its too bad. I guess Im a "hater" because I dont drink the kool aid

[DeSwiss]

59. It's a tough initiation process.....

...few make it through nowadays. Few want to bother. It was easier in the old days because who the enemies were was much clearer to make out. Now it's down to the nuances (except for the Teabaggers, of course). On the other hand the ones that do make it are real gems! Like diamonds tried by pressure and heat -- after going through that, nothing fazes you.

- Hang in there......

[zappaman]

120. No, you're just someone who made a ridiculous attempt to smear her.

By making up shit.
And you got rightly called on it.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026245222

[MattSh]

60. Yep,

I run into those reinforcements a few times a day, at least.

[DeSwiss]

61. Channeling and paraphrasing Barry Goldwater:

"Extremism in the defense of mediocrity is no vice. And let me remind you also that progressiveness in the pursuit of electoral votes is only cosmetic."

- Hellava campaign motto......

[Moonwalk]

40. Funny. Everyone protests that they're not a hater, then something like this turns up....

And instead of a reasoned discussion of the facts, all I see is post after post of gleeful mockery. It sure looks like bashing to me. And hating someone. Rather like children saying nasty things. I'm just confused about this as it doesn't seem helpful. I get no good information from these comments. I get only the message that I should hate Hillary. And that I shouldn't vote for her even if the democrats put her on the ballot.

Do you really want me to do that? Are you, my fellow democrats really telling me that? I look around and I see the GOP destroying this country on state level, on the supreme court. I may wish and dream for a different candidate—and who knows, maybe the primaries will not give us Hillary--but to find everyone tearing this one possible candidate apart...its really dreadful to watch. The GOP and their supporters want us to tear our candidates down, want us to ruin them, want us to not vote. They want us to hand them every advantage.

You don't have to like her. You don't have to want her for president. And all of us should be informed of facts like these and decide what we think of them. But mockery? Sneering? Scorn? Contempt? How do these make you and those you support look good? I really love Warren, but I've been having serious second thoughts about her given what I see her supporters saying about Hillary. Comments like I see in this thread. And how do comments like these make us look to those who would join the democrats?

I don't expect us to be one big happy family with no disagreements, no arguments. But I would like to see us be civil. And to have reasoned discussions. Not tear-downs of a person who might be the party's choice for president, and yes, even Elizabeth Warren's choice for president.

[Fumesucker]

66. Mockery runs in both directions...

Or should I say in all directions.

One side simply happens to be much better at it and has much more ammunition than the other side. The DLC crowd (and yes I know it's "gone&quot is like Republicans in that they can't be funny, in order to engage in humor they have to punch down and punching down isn't funny except to a relatively small set of bullies.

The 99% can't *afford* to have Hillary as President, on a lot of social issues she's great but economically she is in thrall to the 1%, the plutocrats and it's screamingly obvious.

And then there's the whole "We came, we saw, he died. Ha ha ha ha" thing that frankly creeps me the hell out.

[Maedhros]

104. It was the "We came, we saw, he died" incident that convinced me

that Hillary should never, ever be elected President.

[Jack Rabbit]

41. OK. America . . .

[center]

[/center]

[littlemissmartypants]

45. We need more birds to

Sh*t on the glass ceiling to make it more visible.

Kickety.kick.kick.

[joshcryer]

48. I think that this is a great thing Manny.

I think it means that she's really taking into consideration every possible route and narrative. She seems to be going after a fully policy oriented approach, one that takes everything into consideration, the upsides, the downsides.

Obama has acted as a transitional candidate, winging it, trying to get things done with the disaster that Bush left us. Would it be that we had a candidate that had a fully coherent policy approach that figured out everything that needed to be done. I remember saying that I was disappointed Obama didn't light a firecracker and usher in the change he spoke about. It's because I don't think he spent enough time actually doing the policy work, but rather focused on winning and messaging. That's why so many people are disappointed with Obama because he made a rather calculated, brilliant, messaging campaign while actually proposing little of significance (contrasted with his competitors, of course, the ACA was no doubt significant, but Clinton and Edwards proposed essentially the same thing and it was in the works for years before it became possible).

A centrist left leaning person, a totally and completely bureaucrat type is the type of person the country needs. Someone who cares about all of the utterly boring policy issues that doesn't excite a damn person, that is what we need. 90% of posts here are about single issue hot button issues. No one cares about the underlying policy that makes the government run. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the Federal government who are busting their asses to get stuff done. They need to be able to be approached as though they matter and their function as part of the Federal government meshes.

Incrementalism is literally the definition Democracy. Democracy is good in that change happens slow, nothing huge happens overnight and when it does it's rare. Our candidates have always run on this idea of changing everything. "Hope and Change" is quite possibly the most dishonest campaign message that we've ever had to have (and that's why I thought it was brilliant, mind you, it worked, didn't it?). Clinton needs to run on the pragmatist approach, and say, "the government gets it done." Don't shame the government as the Republicans are so fond of doing, bring out a celebration of policy wonks and people sitting in cubicles reading over random studies and surveys to figure out what needs to be done.

Because in reality that's how the government works, a government that just gets shit done, and doesn't play with the BS that the media and the right wing likes to conjure.

Would it be that Clinton had 10000 economic advisers and built an institution solely run by hundreds of managers and policy wonks to get her own policy narrowed down. Because once elected President she'll have access to something like that. "Flailing?" I don't think so, I think it's great. It's utterly great. Bring in another couple of hundred and set up some management system so all the ideas can be digested. Because when the government works together, it works fucking great.

[DonCoquixote]

54. I will be polite but

"A centrist left leaning person, a totally and completely bureaucrat type is the type of person the country needs. "

No, that is exactly the last thing we need.

Yes, we do need people to focus on policy, the stuff that does not excite people, but here is where the argument for centrism fails:

" There are hundreds of thousands of people in the Federal government who are busting their asses to get stuff done. They need to be able to be approached as though they matter and their function as part of the Federal government meshes."

They may be busting their asses, but said hard work is often focused in the wrong directions. You have people busting their ass because they think entitlements need to be cut and taxes lifted on the rich. You have people busting their ass because they think Public schools are the problem, and the solution is Charter schools, you have people busting their ass because they think the onyl way to win in the Mid east is to send more troops.

and all these people busting their ass, sincere as they may be, are taking up positions that Ronald Reagan and Nixon would have considered GOP policy. Hell, Nixon realized we needed an EPA, can you imagine the modern Democratic party DARING to make an EPA? Could you imagine either of the Clintons doing so? Of course, the prez needs to know what these people are doing, but so many of them live in a world that is frankly NOT related to the way most Americans live, and their response to being approached is often to weave you into their own universe, as kill they learned at the Ivy Leagues who themselves have spent so much tiem in the Ivory Tower they have no clue.

Yes, the president needs to work with the govt people busting their ass, but that person also needs to realize all that wonderful policy will be worthless if the people's wishes are not part of that process, and frankly, at this point, it is NOT. Listen to them yes, but when Maureen Dowd used to be angry that not every ego in DC was stroked and petted, it frankly revealed a class that acts more liek a parastic orgamism. Yes, Government IS a part of the soultion, yes, the major definition of the left is that some problems are TOO DAMNED BIG not to have a firm government prescence (as wall street fiddles while rome burns.) If you want to support thos epeople busting their ass, you have to stop being afraid of saying government IS a solution, and that privatizing is not an end in and of itself.

I will say this, if Clinton plays to the right but sneaks left when into office, I will pop champagne. However, that will not allow her to be slient to the left, and then expect them to carry her. The best case scanrio is still implying that Clinton is playing a dangerous game, because she assume she will roll over Scott Walker or Jeb Bush. Jeb has a bad last name, but the one thing I do NOT see is our beloved party head, Debbie Wasserman Schulz, figuring out how to NOT let her home state get stolen by Jeb again, considering that the one Democratic success is Alan grayson, who she insults. As far as Scott Walker, yes he is an indiot, and the Koches know how to prop idiots, especially as frankly, they do not NEED the GOp anymore. Throw in Rand Paul who sadly, a lot of leftists are bying into, despite the fact that they do not realize they cannot afford all that free weed when the minimum wage is paid in company scrip

Hillary, as is, is vulnerbale, because, like Obama, she is playing defense. America has no love for playing defense.

[joshcryer]

65. Nah.

They may be busting their asses, but said hard work is often focused in the wrong directions. You have people busting their ass because they think entitlements need to be cut and taxes lifted on the rich. You have people busting their ass because they think Public schools are the problem, and the solution is Charter schools, you have people busting their ass because they think the onyl way to win in the Mid east is to send more troops.

You're in the bubble. If a policy person thinks cuts are necessary, they're in a minority, because there exist no study, or policy position, that agrees with that. Go try to find one, Google "CCPI policy," you'll find stuff, but no credible institution recommends it. CCPI would be a last resort. Think about it. You're a policy person whose manager is spending all day keeping you in the job because they want to prevent cuts. Neither you, nor your manager, wants those cuts. So with the underlying pressure and pressure from top people, they're unlikely to happen. We gotta appreciate the jobs tens if not hundreds of thousands of workers are doing on a daily basis. That pressure is real.

Charter schools are an exaggeration. They're an issue, but they tend to sort of encapsulate underrepresented students than they do the religious establishment. The idea of vouchers sucks, because it enables for profits to selectively weed out students that may have other issues and thrive. That needs to be fixed. Fix it. Don't bash the people who can fix it, fix it. As of now it's not an incredibly insane failure. It's not the end of the world. It's merely something that needs to be fixed.

I don't see Clinton playing defense, watch The Amerian Experience: Clinton and see that they have, in fact, been playing offense all along. It is actually quite fortuitous that Clinton lost in 2008 (for her legacy). The anti-Bush Presidency was doomed to be transitory. Obama's presidency will be seen as mediocre by many historians. The one that follows will be seen as greatness. But Bush's disaster will require two presidencies to recover from. And the second one will be given more credit. But without Obama nothing would've been possible.

[DonCoquixote]

96. Ok I'll play

"You're in the bubble. If a policy person thinks cuts are necessary, they're in a minority, because there exist no study, or policy position, that agrees with that."

Then why the hell is she not saying that loud and clear? Why does she surround herself with people like Larry Summers that DO call for cuts?

and why does she give non-answers and word salad when asked?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115510/hillary-clintons-2016-campaign-liberals-press-her-entitlements

“What has worked is a compromise where yes, we raise revenues for a certain period, we go and look at entitlements to see what is fair and can be done without really disadvantaging either existing beneficiaries or people who are going to rely on those programs.”

In other words, Word Salad meant not to tick off Goldman Sachs or her friend Alice Walton.

"Charter schools are an exaggeration. They're an issue, but they tend to sort of encapsulate underrepresented students than they do the religious establishment."

I do not mean to ask this is a nasty way, but here goes: You are probably not in the South. In Florida, religious schools have pounced on this to slash our already low public school funds. The same is true throughout the South.

and finally, this:
"It is actually quite fortuitous that Clinton lost in 2008 (for her legacy). The anti-Bush Presidency was doomed to be transitory. Obama's presidency will be seen as mediocre by many historians. The one that follows will be seen as greatness."

If Obama's presidency is seen as Mediocre, it is because he did not do what we asked him to do: move BEYOND Clinton. He picked Clinton aides for his cabinet, and chose Clinton centrism and bipartisanship, not realizing that the left was already weary of that, and the right would never ever accept him if he were to move far to the right of Grover Norquist. However, the ACA will take care of that, as will the death of Osama Ben Ladin (the onlyl real victory we have scored against Al-Q.)

[sabrina 1]

107. Good comment, thank you! I just asked a Hillary supporter where she stands on SS. I KNOW

where Bernie stands, and Warren, and I guess now I know where Hillary 'stands', 'don't ask me that question, because I can't answer it honestly and still win the Dem nomination'.

And that's what I thought to begin with.

[joshcryer]

146. I don't think it's that black and white.

What cuts has Summers advocated? He was for the payroll tax cut, for obvious reasons, during a time when the country was in turmoil. But that was a temporary position. It continues to be parroted by the right wing today, because they know that if they get the left to resent the policy people in the middle / left then they can cause division.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/06/fox-still-pretending-that-former-obama-adviser/184728

Summers actually argued against austerity: http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/hell-freezes-over-larry-summers-gets-it-right

And the US didn't implement anything like EU's drastic austerity that has led to the rise of the right in the EU.

I'm not saying Summers is right or has done everything perfect, I think that, like the policy wonks I discussed in my last post, he's done everything that he felt he could do correctly. He probably got it wrong (advocating against the $1 trillion stimulus).

You are probably not in the South. In Florida, religious schools have pounced on this to slash our already low public school funds. The same is true throughout the South.

And that is probably true and it should be rectified. But they make up 5% of total schools, and if in the South they're more prevalent, then it is likely due to pressure from constituents as opposed to some Democratic mechanization to destroy public schools. School vouchers are still an election issue, unfortunately, it's one of those weird things where it sounds appealing ("give me a choice where to send my kid&quot but in the end it isn't all that good.

But how do you rectify it if you bash Democrats for it and not poor public policy? The Democrats, by and large, advocate science based reasoning and data gathering.

He picked Clinton aides for his cabinet, and chose Clinton centrism and bipartisanship, not realizing that the left was already weary of that, and the right would never ever accept him if he were to move far to the right of Grover Norquist.

Anyone could've seen that coming, though, he didn't have any remotely reasonable connections to get things done. The Clinton's and their previous administration, all the policy wonks were still working in government. Because he ran as a bipartisan it made sense for him, personally, to pick up all the holdovers and bureaucrats that worked under Clinton. Elizabeth Warren actually comes to mind, in that event. She was put in charge of oversight of TARP, not because she was an academic that was involved in finance, but because the Clinton's knew her and appreciated her efforts on bankruptcy reform, and she was an obvious "recommendation."

It probably went something like this:

Obama: TARP is insane, giving all this money away to the bankers, but we gotta do something to keep the economy from bleeding to death, and I'll be damned if we do EU style austerity.

Clinton advisers: Let's just buy everything out and then have them repay it once things settle down, this is all a facade anyway, it's a numbers game, the money still exists, it's just accounting.

Obama: But how do we make sure that they don't run away with the money?

Clinton advisers: There's this lady called Elizabeth Warren and she had experience with bankruptcy reform, she knows how to keep it from falling apart, and she can oversee the receipts.

Obama: Call her up.

I haven't read Axelrod's book so I can't say for sure that's how it went down, but he was favorable to TARP, and thought that Obama should've been given more credit for it than he did. Was TARP great? No, read Warren's report. Was it necessary? Either that or massive austerity. TARP should've excluded CEOs from getting bonuses (which would've led to a lawsuit, no doubt), and it should've broken up the banks. We didn't get it. It sucks. But everyone did what they could do, and Warren was central to that, but why bash everyone just doing their policy work?

I think that's precisely why the Republicans keep winning midterms, they spend the whole time bashing what the government is doing, and then makes them seem like failures, and that it's necessary to replace them with people who literally don't want the government to function. (Every shutdown has been because of Republicans, not Democrats.)

[Fumesucker]

68. The Patriot Act materialized from thin air and was signed by Dubya on Oct 26 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

And then there's TARP, it got through Congress and was signed at warp speed too.

If the owners really want something it happens tout suite..

If the owners don't want something it goes to the circular file committee, six years later Holder is giving a 90 day window to investigate Banker malfeasance.

Priceless.

This is what Hillary's two hundred advisers are doing..

[joshcryer]

86. Elizabeth Warren oversaw TARP.

In case you weren't aware. She concluded that TARP was a success and necessary. Ironically, her report attempted to downplay TARP, but she couldn't do it. The report was mediocre at best.

Holder is not "giving 90 days for an investigation." The investigation has been ongoing for nearly a decade. Holder is going to present the evidence thus far gathered and announce names. He knows the prosecution of any top banker is going to be nearly impossible, so he's passing it off. We're talking a decade long prosecution costing up to a hundred of million dollars.

The important part is he'll list the names and the evidence thus far gathered. He wouldn't be listing names if he didn't have evidence. He has run the DOJ with a soft hand without going after the little people (robocalling scandal comes to mind). I don't blame him for not going after a distraction that no one will care about even if there is a conviction. No one on DU will give a damn if Lynch manages to convict one of them 5+ years from now. If anything people will complain that she didn't do enough.

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. Drats ... Thems fact again! n/t

[TBF]

94. "A centrist left leaning person, a totally and completely bureaucrat type"

and this: "Because when the government works together, it works fucking great."

This from an anarchist? Really?

[joshcryer]

124. Uh, yes?

Government is not ideal, that does not mean I can't observe it.

[TBF]

132. Observe it sure,

but push a centrist candidate?

[joshcryer]

136. On a Dem discussion board!

Oh noes!

[TBF]

137. On any discussion board I'd be surprised

to see an anarchist pushing Hillary Clinton as an ideal candidate. Smh.

[joshcryer]

145. The world is not so black and white.

Last edited Fri Feb 20, 2015, 04:21 AM - Edit history (1)

I post here about policy stuff that is actually happening, not fantasy unreality that is wholly self-aggrandizing.

edit: to clarify, here it would be self-aggrandizing, since the arguments are easy to win. See my journal to see as close as I get to criticizing the government, on a discussion board that is supposed to be about Democrats and the government. It's unfulfilling to go down that road here, while I have plenty of posts on the reddit boards debating this issue.

[TBF]

147. Self-aggrandizing wouldn't be the word I'd use

to describe leftists who are truly looking for better solutions (especially when those solutions are going to mean higher taxes from themselves but a better distribution overall). But I guess fruitless would fit. If the best we can hope for is a centrist we are in big trouble in this country given the already massive inequality.

[joshcryer]

148. You bashed my ideology.

And not expressing it on a government-oriented forum.

What's the point.

Read my other posts here about policy wonks. It seems you are deliberately ignoring the argument.

[TBF]

149. Expressing confusion is not "bashing" -

but we've certainly gone down a rabbit hole here if all the anarchists are Ready For Hillary!!!

[joshcryer]

161. I'm hardly "ready for Hillary."

But your snark has certainly lowered my opinion of you...

[TBF]

162. I don't matter at all -

why would it matter what opinion you hold of me?

The thing that matters is whether we have a presidential candidate that will remember that the other 99% of the country exists - not just the billionaires. At this point in time, until we rid this country (and for that matter the world) of capitalism that is the thing to focus on: doing the least amount of damage to those most vulnerable.

That's why it's important that we not ship all jobs to other countries, privatize public education, break the unions, shut down the post office, or do away with social security - we need services and security nets in place to try to catch at least some of the massive amount of collateral damage capitalism creates.

Hillary in my view is not the best person to take on that job as she drafts TPP ... We could do a comparison I guess and say "yes but she's better than Scott Walker" - but only in the way that a root canal is better than losing your teeth.

We can do better.

[joshcryer]

163. We're unlikely to do better.

But if we're going to try we better get off our assess. I don't see it happening.

I refuse to do crap, been there, done that. The dem nom gets my vote, that's it. No canvassing, no donations, maybe some posts on an irrelevant forum, but otherwise nada.

[hay rick]

51. Why somebody would need 200 economic advisors.

If your focus is on what needs to be done to fix a broken economic system that overcompensates a handful of people at the top to the detriment of everybody else, a handful of advisors is probably adequate. If your focus is on figuring out who needs to be paid off, 200 "economic advisors" is probably just a good start.

[winter is coming]

56. So they could say they consulted 200 economic advisors (not 199 or 201??).

implying that they have taken pains to seek out a wide variety of opinions.

Hillary's already run for President once, and IMO has had her eye on running again since 2008. I'd expect her to have an economic plan, or at the very least, a dozen or so possible economic advisors in her rolodex she could touch base with. This "200 advisors" stuff is spin.

[MADem]

55. She met with one of them in December, I understand.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/politics/clinton-warren-meeting-call/

[snot]

63. Ready for WARREN.

[eridani]

67. If three of them were Krugman,Reich and Piketty--

--I wouldn't give a rat's posterior who the other 197 were.

[Fumesucker]

69. The chances of that run from zip to nil

Satan will be squirting ether into Hell's Zamboni before Hillary listens to any of those dirty hippies.

[RiverLover]

70. One was Reich. A 5 page memo.

One was Larry Summers, via her CAP think tank, a 166 page report.

....What I learned in 2008 about Centrists running for president, they talk progressive to get the vote, and then they do the conservative centristy thing once elected to office. Then their duplicity is defended by party loyalists who swear the other side would have been worse. And that may be, but does that make it OK? Does continuing to enable this help our country?

Anyways, here's an article about HRC's economic policy input from many sources~

Mr. Reich, who recently sent Mrs. Clinton a five-page memo laying out his ideas, said candidates in both parties needed to abandon the politically safe discussion of upward mobility for the poor and middle class that dominated the 1990s, and instead take on the stickier issue of income distribution.

“Upward mobility, equal opportunity — those are safe phrases and safe aspirations,” he said in an interview. “I don’t want to minimize their importance, but they obscure the real issue.”

Mr. Reich is one of some 200 economists and academics who have offered Mrs. Clinton ideas and guidance as she settles on an economic doctrine. Several of Mr. Clinton’s former advisers, including Alan S. Blinder, Robert E. Rubin and Mr. Summers, maintain influence. But Mrs. Clinton has cast a wide net that also includes Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics who has written extensively about inequality; Alan B. Krueger, a professor at Princeton and co-author of “Inequality in America”; and Peter R. Orszag, a former director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Obama. Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist who focuses on retirement issues, is also playing a prominent role.

Last month in Washington, a 17-person commission convened by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with close ties to Mrs. Clinton, presented a 166-page report on “inclusive prosperity,” which is among the numerous economic blueprints Mrs. Clinton has reviewed. For some, the solutions proposed by the committee, of which Mr. Summers was co-chairman, did not go far enough.

Dean Baker, an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has pushed the idea of a government fee on the sale or purchase of certain financial assets, which he believes could hold Wall Street accountable while funding social services. “Clinton people didn’t want to go near it,” Mr. Baker said....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/us/politics/economic-plan-is-a-quandary-for-hillary-clintons-campaign.html

[winter is coming]

75. I would. Talking to people isn't the same thing as listening to them.

The sheer number of people consulted is likely a hint that she already had the broad strokes of her economic plan in hand before she started, but wanted the political cover of saying she searched high and low for the perfect policy.

I fully expect her to unveil a "pragmatic" policy that boils down to rearranging the deck chairs.

[Scuba]

72. I'ma have me a listen later. Thanks TWM.

[notadmblnd]

76. because Warren is an expert in the field and Hillary is not?

what did I win? Gee I hope it's a new car.

[LWolf]

77. Ready for any non-DLC3rdWayNewDemNeoLiberal Democrat. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

78. Anyone who supported Reaganomics for 20 years could use some economic advisors but that enduring

state of supply side conviction suggests a person who does not listen to anyone or anything, including the cold hard evidence that trickle down was a bogus scam.

The other thing is I sure as hell don't hear Warren talking about 'tearing the roof off' she talks about careful regulations of her precious investor class banks. I've never heard her speak of making systemic changes, never even heard he speak of all Americans as equal. I have seen her voting record as a Republican. She voted against every single thing and candidate I supported for 30 years. I hated Reagan, he hated gay people, he appointed people like Pat Buchanan and Dinesh D'Sousa and Paul Wolfowitz, he and his staff were racists, his rhetoric was steeped in ugly bigotry.

So when your candidate is a long term Republican Supply Sider, telling me she wants to 'tear the roof off' will not cut it. She and her cohort already tore the roof off of the LGBT community and the middle class back in the 80's. We still need a new roof to replace the one she and her cronies destroyed while enriching themselves and laughing about AIDS.

It's too bad Warren was the choice because I just don't buy that a religiously conservative Republican loyalist has become a revolutionary just 'cause posters on DU I already see as homophobic make that claim. What's she done to suggest such radical thinking on her part? Voting for Nixon?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Hmmmm

" It's too bad Warren was the choice because I just don't buy that a religiously conservative Republican loyalist has become a revolutionary just 'cause posters on DU I already see as homophobic make that claim. What's she done to suggest such radical thinking on her part? Voting for Nixon? "


Reminds me of Il Duce. Mussolini went from being a Marxist to a fascist and believed in both with an equal fervor at the time he was one.

[MannyGoldstein]

91. Silly me. I thought you would post an apology for

your disturbing and dead-wrong post that I responded to here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6193133

Before starting in on a new round of attacks aimed selectively at Warren and those of us who support her.

[boston bean]

85. Because Warren isn't considering running for president??

[Orsino]

87. We seem to have a very clear choice between business as usual...

...and whatever other candidate might just possibly dare to take on the business as usual.

I think we're gonna get business as usual.

[KingCharlemagne]

88. This debate strikes me as mostly academic, since Republicans currently

control both chambers of Congress.

It would not matter if HRC had a 'Paul-on-the-road-to-Tarsus' conversion to Democratic Socialism, so long as Republicans control the House and Senate. I see very little prospect of the House changing hands in 2016.

[Fumesucker]

98. The veto can be important..

[L0oniX]

89. Goldman Sachs 2016

[rhett o rick]

138. The Democratic ticket in 2016......wait for it......H.Clinton/Goldman-Sachs.

Corps are people and can run for office, just ask his highness John Roberts.

[Autumn]

93. There is a huge difference between the two women.

We need real change, and we can't settle for less.

[backscatter712]

100. Because Warren IS an economic adviser.

She's got the doctorate and the faculty position at Harvard - I think she knows what she's talking about.

[winter is coming]

135. She's a law professor, not an economist.

She did a lot of work on bankruptcy law and got involved in consumer protection about twenty years ago.

She does seem more up to speed on our current situation than Hillary, whose economic plan will likely be a well-disguised variation of trickle-down, but it's not her research specialty.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. Because when you are focused narrowly ...

on a specific economic area, that you happen to be an expert in, you don't need nearly as many advisors?

Just a guess ...

[libdem4life]

103. Both women have individual strengths. Warren was/is an Educator. Hillary has

always been a fighter and a scrapper with a thick hide...necessary for the grueling bats, bricks and punishment of a national campaign...more so as a woman and a Clinton.

Together they make a great mix of capabilities. Warren doesn't want to be President, and Clinton has already done the Senator thing and moved on.

On Edit: I think consulting many professionals is a sign of openness and desiring to see all sides of the issues so as to craft her message to as wide an electorate as possible. She does have to represent an astounding number of people, ideas, cultures, religions and political stances.

[1StrongBlackMan]

126. This ...

On Edit: I think consulting many professionals is a sign of openness and desiring to see all sides of the issues so as to craft her message to as wide an electorate as possible.

IMO, will be President Obama's greatest contribution to the decision-making process (in a Democratic Whitehouse) ... his consistent/insistent seeking of divergent perspectives. It is the rare advisor that can convincing argue a position that they do not hold. And one cannot properly answer a question, not convincingly put.

This is where his academic and lawyerly background intersect ... and explain his batting average for making the right call, on a wide variety of topics.

[libdem4life]

128. We could probably count on one hand the "advisors" Jeb has or will avail himself of...

and GHWB, and GWB and Barbara Bush are likely to be the first three.

[fadedrose]

121. I think Warren IS an advisor

and at's the reason she don't need none. She learns us all something when she speaks.....

[rhett o rick]

139. It basically breaks down as to whether we want to fight for our Democracy or go with

the slide into fascism. Those that support H. Clinton-Sachs recognize that she won'tt pull us out of this dive. They just don't want to take the risk. They would rather let our infrastructure crumble and let our children go to bed hungry that fight for change.

Those that whine that "Warren said she isn't running" ad nauseum, are afraid of change they cling to the status quo. Our founders would not be proud of them.

[Bobbie Jo]

150. What utter nonsense

They would rather let our infrastructure crumble and let our children go to bed hungry that fight for change.

Seriously? I Just have to laugh at the sheer lunacy of that statement.

Those that whine that "Warren said she isn't running" ad nauseum, are afraid of change they cling to the status quo.

No one is "whining" that Warren isn't running. She isn't. Period. Those who interject with this fact are essentially asking what is your plan B? I have yet to see a reality-based scenario to address this question. So what is the plan??

I LOVE EW and her message. This continuous nonsense of pitting one against the other is getting ridiculous.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

154. It's the same tiresome blend

of facile "analysis" and cringe-worthy amateur psychology he always trots out. And whenever he's questioned on it, he just sidesteps the question and keep on shouting into the echo chamber.

[Bobbie Jo]

159. Strawman architect, extraordinaire.

Seriously, I really don't understand the need to pit these two women against each other. Yet, I see at least 5 OP's a day attempting to do just that.

I refuse to pick a side in this manufactured feud.

[rhett o rick]

160. Interesting that HRC supporters only have loaded questions. No statements, just questions.

"And whenever he's questioned on it, he just sidesteps the question and keep on shouting into the echo chamber."

I continue to answer the question. Anyone more progressive than HRC.

HRC supports Big Banks, she supports a foreign policy of continuous wars, she supports fracking, etc. She isn't about to bring the change we need.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

164. "HRC supporters"? I'll just add an addendum to my response #154 above

that you also seem to have a real fondness for making wholly unfounded assumptions. Clinton is the last person I want to see get the nomination. Sherrod Brown, Martin O'Malley and Elizabeth Warren are my preferences (in that order, for now). Unfortunately, of the three, only O'Malley has indicated any interest in pursuing the nomination.

As to what those "HRC supporters" have or don't have, I'll leave that to you since you're apparently the expert on the topic.

[rhett o rick]

165. I guess I misunderstood your very "clever" post. Then prey tell me what

question you think I "sidestepped".

And I stand by my statement that HRC supporters don't provide one iota of substance only disparage those that don't follow in lockstep.

[rhett o rick]

155. Interesting that you laugh at my statements and mock, but really have nothing to

counter.

With regard to the whining. The continuous repeating of the statement, "But she isn't running" over and over, is whining even if it's true. She isn't running now and everyone knows that. And the Powers That Be might be able to convince her not to run.

Those that support HRC favor the status quo which is not good.

Support change. 22% of our children live in poverty and 45% of our children live in low income families. Goldman-Sachs doesn't care. Don't vote for Goldman-Sachs.

[Bobbie Jo]

157. Again..

What. Is. Your. Plan. B. ???

Counter what, exactly? "Don't vote, argle bargle, ...."

Throwing strawman platitudes at anyone who questions your posts does diddly squat.

Please address the question.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

151. Common sense doesn't take a bunch of people making stuff up?

With a whole boatlload of 'advisors', they can all make up nonsense and muddle things enough so that 'supply side' doesn't sound as ridiculous to them.

[obxhead]

152. level the building including the foundation, then

salt the earth it stood upon.

Then we can build something.

[KamaAina]

153. She doesn't need them?

[brooklynite]

166. Hillary has more than 1,000,000 supporters. Why doesn't Warren?

Anti-Hillary folks like Manny have been talking up Warren for at least a year. Where's all the support? where's all the money?

Of course, maybe the fact that Warren has made it clear she's not running is keeping the numbers down.

[nc4bo]

167. I prefer to tear the roof off the sucker, tweaking hasn't really gotten us anywhere

We desperately need some fresh air in our politics and I don't mean nutty libertarian, teabaggin' crazy fresh air.

The Mid-terms PROVED that this country agrees, without a doubt, on populist causes and issues and I don't find that to be the same status quo the talking M$M heads, poll$ters and Right Wing Dings claim is our current political temperature.