I'm wondering if the Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton stuff

[BainsBane]

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:13 PM - Edit history (2)

a feud that exists only among DUers--is reflective of a tendency to pit women against each other, a political cat fight. I see it as ugly. Once again, women's bodies become proxies in political battles.

Edit: I'm told this thread has attracted attention from the regular peanut gallery, so I will spell out in this OP some of the ideas discussed below. I understand that my actual point is irrelevant to some, but I will express it nonetheless.

Clinton and Warren exist as political rivals only on DU. This is not like the primary battles between Obama and Clinton supporters because Warren is not running. Warren has said on multiple occasions that she is not going to run for the presidential nomination. In fact, she urged Secretary Clinton to run. Despite that, DUers have cast them as political foes and organized themselves in camps of Clinton vs. Warren--a entirely fictitious political rivalry. Some have pointed out they see the division as exemplifying Main street vs. Wall Street. That is an important issue to talk about, and I would find it interesting if we discussed the actual policies at issue and how we all can pressure the Democratic Party to effect change that benefit the people. Instead, DUers decide to make it about individuals--about Clinton vs. Warren. Some cast Warren as their political savior, with Clinton as the metaphorical Eve, responsible for the fall into corporate chronism. Duers imagine Clinton as embodying all the ills of the Democratic party and place on her responsibility for everything they dislike about the Obama administration, policies that are actually his. While many express disenchantment with Obama, they reveal outright hatred of Clinton.

The notion that if only we have a leftist savior like Warren, government would no longer be beholden to corporate interests strikes me as absurd. We still have the GOP in congress; we still have a campaign finance system that enables corporate interests to control politicians of both parties. We have never had a leftist president in the US because this is not a leftist country. I understand that is a difficult fact to face, but it is nonetheless so. That does not mean we cannot pressure government to change and better serve the interests of the people, but the notion that results from a particular presidential candidate should have been proved false by the experience of the Obama administration. There is no messiah in American politics.

So why do DUers insist on seeing the direction of the party embodied in an invented rivalry between Warren vs. Clinton? Clinton is a likely Presidential Candidate. It makes sense to examine her suitability for office (though I find myself exasperated that people focus on 2016 now rather than the coming midterm and state elections that have a great deal, probably more, to do with the political direction of the country). But why Warren? Why a woman who has said she is not running? Why pit these two women against each other? Why must DUers imagine these women as political rivals, when they do not treat each other as such? Why must women be cast as foes in the DU public imagination?

[whathehell]

1. I don't think that's the case, Baines...I certainly don't feel that way, it's a matter

of policy to me, and besides, remember all the hostility between those supporting Obama and those

supporting Hillary in 2008?

[BainsBane]

2. I wasn't here then

but from what I see, some people place on Clinton all the ills of the Democratic Party and of Obama's policies in particular, as though the President has nothing to do with them. They cast Clinton in the position of the metaphorical Eve. They attribute to her characteristics of the party as a whole, while imagining Warren as a savior. Then there are those who attack Warren in racist terms (a post I just saw that shockingly was not hidden).

These two women are not running for the Presidential nomination. Obama and Clinton were. Most expect Clinton will run but Warren has repeatedly said she will not. So why create a war between them here on DU that doesn't exist in reality?

[whathehell]

6. Okay, well I can tell you it was BAD..

I will say that I much prefer Warren to Clinton, but I don't hate her or blame her for "all the evils" of the democratic party today.

Who the hell said something racist about Warren and what did they say?

[BainsBane]

12. It's in Manny's thread

and had to do with a peace pipe. I alerted and it came back 3-3. It's near the top of the thread.

[whathehell]

61. Thanks, Bains n/t

[BeyondGeography]

3. Or maybe a lot of people see them as the two best candidates

and gender schmender.

[BainsBane]

5. One of whom has said she will not run

How does that not enter into the equation?

[djean111]

4. As a woman - I don't think this is about them being women.

I don't really CARE if either of them is a woman.
I only care about their politics.
I do think there are those who will try and frame this as some sort of feminist thing, I and I think that is just wrong.
I went through feminist battles in the 60's and 70's and onwards, and what I really wanted was - gender neutrality as far as was possible.

[BainsBane]

8. The question is why Warren vs Clinton?

Warren isn't a presidential candidate. She isn't running against Clinton. In fact she has said she is not running, but for some reason people feel compelled to pit them against each other regardless.

Why is this not about Biden vs. Chris Murphy, for example? If people are going to pick random Democrats who aren't running against each other, they could pick anyone. Biden vs. Clinton would make more sense since both have expressed interest in running, while Warren has explicitly said she will not.

HOF exists to talk about feminism. Not to engage in fantasies about gender neutrality. Colorblindness and now gender neutrality. The right really has reshaped political discourse.

[djean111]

20. I feel people are responding to the IDEA of a Warren without reference to her gender.

[Warpy]

7. It exists only in a few people's heads here and elsewhere. It's a wet dream of the far right, too

In the real world, Warren has already endorsed Clinton.

I'd rather see Warren as Comptroller of the Currency. Her background and skills would be wasted in the presidency but as the direct disciplinarian of financial institutions run amok, she could be extremely effective at what this country needs to do about them.

[BainsBane]

11. Or Treasury Secretary.

[Warpy]

25. No, I want her going after the bank fraudsters

She'd be wasted at Treasury, too.

[BainsBane]

26. Seems like you know more about what those jobs entail

than I do.

[Paper Roses]

9. I think it is time for Elizabeth. I think Hillary has done a great job.

Time to move on. If Elizabeth keeps it up, she has my vote. Same opinion with others I know.
No other women are in the limelight right now.
We need a woman to speak up and shake some of the old, decrepit Washington bones.

We've had enough of the 'good old boy network'. (not including HRC)

My opinion only.

[BainsBane]

10. I think it's time for Salvador Allende

My opinion only. Only he's not running, nor is Warren.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. I disagree...I think it's an ideological war.

Warren just happens to be female - but she's someone who speaks to a level of the party that Hillary can't reach. It's not gender, I don't think. It's similar to what we saw in 2008 with Obama/Clinton.

[BainsBane]

14. But Warren isn't running

That's the point. She has said she isn't running. Obama and Clinton were political rivals. Warren and Clinton are not. Warren has urged Clinton to run for the presidency.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. I think it's fueled by the fact no one seems to be running against Hillary.

They want someone to step in and fill the void that is lacking. There aren't as many relevant or prominent Democrats who do that. Howard Dean? He's a retread whose message has been muddled extensively since leaving the DNC. Kucinich? He's done. No one cares about him anymore. O'Malley? He's not as known, or vocal, on important issues that rile the liberals up. Warren, because of her position as a senator, the fact she's new to this whole political game, is someone who draws attention. I brought up Obama because it was very similar - Obama was instantly a national figure after 2004 similar to Warren after 2012. You're right, Obama ran - she's not. But she's still a figure who draws a lot of attention.

That alone makes her more popular than 90% of the current Democrats.

[BainsBane]

16. That's a good point

Also the fact she is new to office means she hasn't cast votes that anger people.

[Drunken Irishman]

17. I think that's a big part of it...

She's fresh and untainted. Those other politicians have a history that has made it harder for people to support.

I think they see Warren as the candidate who COULD stop Hillary. But, as you said, she's not going to run.

[Walk away]

19. Are you speaking sense again???

This preoccupation with reality won't get you very far on what always becomes these "Warren for President" threads.

[BainsBane]

24. That's why I drop Salvador Allende's name

but no one ever seems to get it. I suppose they don't know who he is.

[Jackpine Radical]

18. OK, 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.

[djean111]

22. My sentiments exactly.

[BainsBane]

23. That's interesting

I would find the discussion far more interesting if it were framed in terms of standing up to the bankers rather than individuals.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. I agree completely & Hillary's record of standing WITH Wall Street speaks for itself.

We need new blood, someone like Elizabeth Warren, who will represent the "little guy" and put the people's priorities ahead of their own self interest. I hope Elizabeth changes her mind and decides to run. We need her!

[BainsBane]

57. Obviously you aren't agreeing with me

at all. Did you read the OP?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. Yes, I read it, and was merely responding to your salient point that . . .

"I would find the discussion far more interesting if
it were framed in terms of standing up to the
bankers rather than individuals." I couldn't agree more and, framed in that context, there's only one candidate for president deserving of mention, that's Elizabeth Warren. No one even comes close to standing up to Wall Street - indeed, too many are beholden to the bankers and are not worthy of serious consideration to be our presidential nominee.

[MannyGoldstein]

54. Indeed

I'll support and work to help any animal, vegetable, or mineral that I believe will fight for the 99%.

I'll work to stop any animal, vegetable, or mineral that I believe will harm the 99%.

We've suffered miserably over the last three decades; it must stop.

[DURHAM D]

21. Yes.

[Doctor_J]

27. I'd think you'd be happy that both major factions of the party are

represented by smart women. Would you be happier if Grayson and Warner were the front runners?

[BainsBane]

28. The idea that this is about front-runners

Is a figment of DU's imagination. Warren isn't running. She has said so on more than one occasion.

[seabeyond]

34. no j, but what you did was create this thread in your mens forum, in a manner that it is not.

this one appears to at least be sensible, back and forth conversation, civil and respectful. where as you run over to the mens room and play a little fuckin game in a very catty manner.

[BainsBane]

46. They created a thread to mock this?

I can just imagine how absurd that is. It will have no relation whatsoever to the ideas discussed here.

[seabeyond]

51. Ya. Barely read. Got the mock, came in and read the thread seeing reason and

Discussion and a wtf. The there j is fueling the fire. Bullshit and that would be the crap you are talking about

[BainsBane]

52. I don't have to read that thread

to know the level at which it operates.

[BainsBane]

53. Perhaps it's just that

some simply lack the capacity to engage in thoughtful analysis, as caricature of my argument suggests.

[BainsBane]

55. Why no follow up thread on Sor Juana?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125529656

[NuclearDem]

29. It's because they're both household names among Democrats

And with regards to corporate America, they couldn't be more different. That they're both women is just incidental.

Warren might not run, but for all intents and purposes, she's become the standard bearer for the populist movement in the party. If there's anything negative for women in this equation, it's the TPP that Hillary supports, and how it would affect countless women workers in those countries.

[BenzoDia]

30. It's absolutely a woman vs woman thing. And many "liberals" encourage it.

[lumpy]

31. Warren and Clinton aren't feuding; just some people on DU who apparently dislike Clinton enough

to create a rift between DUer's. Disgusting I say.

[BainsBane]

32. Yes, that's my point

The feud exists only here. The question is why?

[DURHAM D]

33. Detritus from 2008 primary.

[MadrasT]

35. They are wildly different candidates

and therefore are going to attract different types of supporters.

Primary season is hell on DU, I don't think gender has much to do with it.



Hillary is too corporate and entrenched for my liking; I love Warren.

(But Hillary is 1000 times better than anyone the Republicans could put forth.)

[BainsBane]

37. Warren isn't a candidate, and has said she isn't running

[MadrasT]

38. It seems like the context of the discuss is revolving around

Warren as a potential candidate.

If it isn't then I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

[BainsBane]

39. The context is how these two women are described on DU

People pit them against each other and imagine they are political rivals, when they are not. Warren has asked Clinton to run for the Presidency. Warren has at least twice said she is not interested in running herself. This is a rivalry that exists only in the heads of some on this site, not in reality. So why pit them against each other?

[MadrasT]

47. OK. I guess I am not paying attention to the same threads as you.

I see people saying they'd rather see Warren get the nomination than Clinton (even though it is wishful thinking based on her statements) but I don't really see them being portrayed as actual political rivals outside of that. More like theoretical rivals, given the dream scenario where Warren runs. Which seems like normal stuff that happens when we sort out who our candidate will be.

Again, maybe we are viewing different conversations.

[BainsBane]

48. What finally set me off on this

Was Manny's thread yesterday talking about an imagined Warren assassination of Clinton in Bosnia. Clearly, that took rivalry to whole new levels, but I've been noticing a tendency to place on them ideas they think embody left vs. right.

[ismnotwasm]

36. Probably

Women are new to the center stage,and any change that huge is going to bring out behaviors and opinions that are somewhat gendered.

[CrispyQ]

40. I see it more as Wall St. vs Main St.

Sure, we have (a few) other Main St. defenders, but Warren is new & speaks out boldly against the banksters. She also resonates with The People. She doesn't sound like a politician. Bernie Sanders, I love him, but he sounds like a politician. One who's fighting our fight, but we are wary of politicians, with good reason. Warren sounds like a college professor who doesn't care about the status quo. It may not last, but here's hoping it does!

Clinton? Well, if she runs, she will be the leading contender, imo. I have a repub friend who told me she would vote for Clinton.

[boston bean]

41. This thread might make one come to a different conclusion..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251318559

[seabeyond]

42. that was really disappointing, in your face sexism, and gives me a warm and fuzzy of the pathetic

sexism to come from our male duers. and still stands. lovely

time to throw up another appreciate rape porn thread.

and politely be anti choice.

[boston bean]

43. It was just sarcasm, sea... just sarcasm...

pantgown? WTH!

[BainsBane]

44. His shtick wore thin a long time ago

[MadrasT]

49. I thought that was just sarcasm.

That particular poster's schtick tends to annoy me but I can't get worked up over this one.

Maybe it's my aspieness but...

[BainsBane]

45. Why then can't it be cast as Wall Street vs. Main Street?

Rather than having women serve as proxies for political battles? I'm all for the pro-Main street ideas. I'm not for Clinton bashing, however. I would have thought the Obama administration would have shown the fallacy of the idea that presidential candidates within the party enact demonstrably left vs. right policies. Also, I've noticed a tendency to place on Clinton all that people dislike about the Democratic party and the current administration, policies that are actually Obama's.

I find this tendency to reduce ideas to fights about individuals an unfortunately simplification and distortion of politics. The important concerns about privacy vs. counterterroism in the NSA became about whether or not Snowden and Greenwald were messiahs or devils. It reduces important questions to inane squabbling.

[BainsBane]

50. I've expanded the OP in order to clarify my point

Particularly since I'm told this thread is subject to the ever-present mens' rights gaze.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. when did Hillary declare?

[One_Life_To_Give]

60. DLC vs Progressive

IMO It's a continuation of the fight between the DLC and Centrist Democrats vs the more progressive's which make up a significant portion of DU. Hillary is still viewed as tied to the DLC, while Warren is acting more to the Left. And like in previous Presidential Primaries that is where the fight for the nomination is going to be.

I think we should be pleased that two women are being viewed as the frontrunners in the primary race. Not so long ago many thought a VP nod to a woman was just window dressing.

[Whisp]

62. a political cat fight?

what?

I had to stop reading right there.

The reason I support Warren over Clinton is because of their record and character, nothing else. Please.

[BainsBane]

63. Warren isn't a candidate

So what are you supporting?

[Whisp]

64. No one at this stage of time is going to declare.

that would be suicide.

Warren may not run, or she may change her mind and run.
When asked if she supported Hillary for Pres, there was no other answer for Warren to make other than: yes.

Can you imagine if she said No?
Impossible to say no to that and live.

The Clintons are a pre-existing condition of the Democratic Party.