Elizabeth Warren, flanking Hillary from the left
Elizabeth Warren made a speech condemning a provision in the new CRomnibus bill that gives banks more leeway about a rather small class of risky derivatives, and the media and the left have anointed her the new Democratic frontrunner, the younger woman to Hillary’s tired and worn-out has-been.
Warren is 65 to Clinton’s 67, so I’m speaking only metaphorically here when I write “younger.” Warren is seen as a fresh face and a viable alternative to the baggage Hillary carries, for nearly the same reason that Barack Obama was: she’s done little in the way of things that would give her the sort of experience required to be president, she’s a freshman senator who’s a pretty good speaker, and she’s a member of a group of people (in his case, blacks; in hers, women and perhaps even native Americans if she wants to really stretch it) whose time is assumed to have come in terms of the presidency.
It’s as though the Democratic Party asked Central Casting to send them a Hillary type, only better and more like Barack Obama, and more obviously to the left on economic matters.
As a result we have fawning pieces such as this one at HuffPo entitled “The Speech That Could Make Elizabeth Warren the Next President of the United States.” Barack Obama has already established that speeches should be the main criteria for selecting a president, so this may not seem so far-fetched to those who voted for him.
Here are some excerpts from her speech:
Democrats don’t like Wall Street bailouts. Republicans don’t like Wall Street bailouts. The American people are disgusted by Wall Street bailouts
And yet here we are, five years after Dodd-Frank with Congress on the verge of ramming through a provision that would do nothing for the middle class, do nothing for community banks, do nothing but raise the risk that taxpayers will have to bail out the biggest banks once again…
Few conservatives would disagree. But while conservatives would be against a bailout because they feel that such banks should suffer the logical consequences of their behavior—in other words, because bailouts create what’s known as a “moral hazard”—you won’t hear that phrase in Warren’s speech. Her remedy is always more government regulation, not less. If big business is the problem, big government is her invariable solution.
By the way, I don’t for a moment believe Warren isn’t thinking very very seriously of running for president in 2016.
“It’s as though the Democratic Party asked Central Casting to send them a Hillary type, only better and more like Barack Obama, and more obviously to the left on economic matters.”
Exactly. That sentence should go viral
That new car smell will tank HRC. The faux Cherokee and wealthy populist trumps the woman who ducked answering the Benghazi phone call.
There are strong indications that Obama has already started to make known his decided preference for Warren.
Geoffrey Britain:
Ever since Hillary took the SOS job I have thought there must have been some quid pro quo arrangement between her and Obama, such as “you be my SOS and I’ll help you in 2016,” and that before 2016 he would throw her under the bus.
I’m still wondering what exactly Obama has on the Clintons.
That’s my take as well neo. I realize that in the dog eat dog world of politics verbal agreements are made to be broken and I have no doubt that if it suited them, the Clinton’s would have no hesitancy in breaking an agreement. Nevertheless, I suspect that Obama’s narcissism, arrogance and ideological fanaticism puts him in an entirely different category than Hillary. My intuition warns me that he has no moral compass whatsoever.
Kyndyll,
There have to be many skeletons in the Clinton’s closet and more than a few associates may well have damning evidence regarding those skeletons. It seems probable that one of those people sold that evidence to Obama. As I recall, the Clinton’s treated Obama with “kid gloves” even after he became an undeniable threat to her 2008 nomination campaign… there was a curious ‘acceptance’ on her part. Sure, she had to stay clear of any possible accusation of racism but she never really made his utter lack of experience an issue and given that it was by far his most vulnerable point, the only credible explanation is that she literally was constrained from attacking him.
I can’t see Warren being more popular with democrats than Hillary.
G Joubert ,
Wasn’t that exactly what many on the right said of Obama in early 2007? That he stood no chance against Hillary?
If you ask me who the next President will be, my default answer would be whoever the Democrats nominate, since the Republicans have only won the popular vote once since 1988, and there were some pretty unusual circumstances involved in that. which means the nomination will be contested, because it’s worth having. And that means that Hillary probably won’t get it. She really didn’t run a very good campaign in 2008, and the Left will never forgive her for having voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
I don;t know who the Democratic nominee will be. Maybe Elizabeth Warren, but there other possibilities.
If this country elects Warren as president, it will get the comeuppance it deserves, and quickly. She is dangerously stupid.
The country does not like Obama. Warren will have run against Obama. Will Mr Thin Skin take that in stride?
Warren will run as the far-left looney, with two desirable consequences for the Democrats and Hillary:
(1) It will force Hillary’s primary season persona to shift farther left than she would prefer, thus enlisting support from the nutcase base energized by Warren who might otherwise sit it out.
(2) It will allow Hillary to position herself as a “moderate” in the general election, between the Hugo Chavez leftism of Warren and what the media will portray as the far right extremism of whoever wins the GOP nomination.
What “strong indications” precisely, Geoffrey Britain?
The whole Warren phenomena is, in my opinion, entirely misunderstood. The comments and impressions I’ve seen on many blogs across the spectrum illustrate a certain myopia political junkies (left, right and beyond) are wont to betray. Warren may be exciting and intriguing to a tiny coterie of political mavens. Beyond that, she is a blip on the radar. Unless there is a massive change in climate very soon, this is unlikely to change. Therefore, nota bene: I say right here, right now. (1) Warren will NOT challenge Hillary Clinton unless the later either declines to run or falters significantly. (2) Obama will NEVER endorse Warren (or Hillary) under any circumstances. (3) Even if Warren does make a quixotic challenge to Hillary, she will be buried quickly and brutally.
To be perfectly clear: The analogy to Obama in 2006-07 is profoundly mistaken and betrays a cavalier attitude towards history. To illustrate my point, let’s look at some polls currently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2016_presidential_primaries
Now, compare this to the same point in time eight years ago (December 2006-January 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates
Hillary was certainly consistently ahead, but never anywhere close to 50%. Obama and Edwards (with Gore occasionally thrown into the mix) combined almost consistently outpolled her. The “Not Hillary” sentiment was powerful and pervasive. It simply had not crystalized behind one specific candidate as yet.
Eight years later, we see Hillary always polling well above 50%; often above 60%. Warren almost never breaks 20%. For those of you who say “polls shmols, they can change overnight”, I offer a challenge: show me one instance since modern polling began where a Presidential contender of either party constantly polled above 50% for his nomination, AND sought the nomination, but failed. If it has happened, I know not when.
But, for the sake of argument, polls shmols. Yes, they *could* change markedly over the next year. However, I have yet to encounter a coherent explanation as to how Warren will successfully win over a significant number Democratic regulars. The ideological activist hardcore of the Democratic party cannot, in itself, decide the nomination any more than the Tea Party can decide the GOP nomination. Warren would have to persuade a significant portion of ordinary Democratic voters, as well as a contingent of the party establishment. Both are unlikely.
First the Democratic regulars. Let’s be perfectly honest and realistic. Barack Obama won the 2008 nomination due to to his unique ability to combine the activist left with the trendy white urban yuppies with strong support from African-Americans. This was enough to counterbalance, working and middle class, middle American whites who heavily supported Hillary. It is utterly politically incorrect, but honest, to say this: He did so primarily because of his race. All other things being equal, if he were white, Obama would have gone the way of Howard Dean, of Bill Bradley, of Jerry Brown, of Gary Hart, of Ted Kennedy, of Gene McCarthy.
Even with the solid support of African-Americans, even with a fawning, sympathetic media, Obama just barely pushed past Hillary. A unique combination of circumstances facilitated his victory. They do not exist at present (for Warren or any other challenger) and are unlikely to develop in the near future.
That said, I eagerly await an explanation as to how a 60something, white (let’s ignore the faux Native American posturing) elite Ivy League law professor is going to generate either a groundswell of support from white (and/or Hispanic) working and middle class America or African Americans. She would secure the ideological base and the trendy urban yuppies and hipsters; I grant you. That’s not enough. It wasn’t enough for Dean. Yes, the party has evolved (regressed) in the direction of these groups since 2004, but not so much as to make them alone the deciding factor. She would need a majority of either white and Hispanic working/middle class middle Americans (outside of the handful of trendy urban centers) or a majority of African Americans. How does she get that?
One possibility were if the party establishment swung behind her. Not entirely, but a significant minority at least. This is highly unlikely for one simple reason: the Democratic establishment wants to maintain power. Now that the GOP has both houses of Congress, they desperately want to retain the presidency at almost all costs. They are unlikely to take any significant risk on a challenger. Hillary is safe, reliable, steadfast. They will circle their wagons around her.
Here is where the contrast to eight years ago is most important and obvious. In 2006-07, Democrats were bullish. They triumphed in the 2006 midterms, the war with Iraq (despite the surge) was still unpopular, the precursors to the financial crisis were developing and George W. Bush’s popularity had plummeted. Hillary wasn’t exactly beloved by establishment or regulars alike, but she was the default choice, the safe choice. HOWEVER, many Democrats felt comfortable about taking a risk. The wind was at their backs, they appeared clearly favored in 2008. Why not take a chance on their hopes, their aspirations, rather than play it safe? Obama knew and understood this yearning and fed off it…beautifully.
Barring a monumental change in circumstance, the situation in 2015 will be just the opposite. Democrats are chastised and pessimistic. They must deal with an unpopular president of their party, a tired, worn out Congressional leadership (all of the top Democrats in both houses are over 70) and a 2016 field which appears to favor the GOP (despite the latter’s ample bungling). I know there has been plenty of progressive bluster and wistful musings (as there were in 1999, when Paul Wellstone flirted with a run). It means little. The establishment will be inclined to play it safe, hedge their bets, to maximize their likelihood on maintaining the White House (and hopefully selecting replacements for Ginsberg and Scalia) rather than indulging their hopes and ideals. Hence, Hillary.
Obviously, Obama could change this dynamic radically. Were he to endorse Warren (so unlikely as to not even be fathomable) or even not so subtly exert influence on her behalf, a fair amount of the establishment may follow. This is highly unlikely. The reason why exemplifies a fundamental misconception so many on the right (including many on this blog) have about Obama. In my estimation, Obama is not terribly ideological. He is leftist, certainly; as it is the default position of most individuals with a professional/intellectual background like his. But Obama’s first priority is Obama. First, last and always. Right now, this entails securing his place in history as a beloved and idolized “elder statesman”. Interjecting himself, to any significant degree, into the 2016 nomination contest does little to facilitate this priority and carries a significant risk of diminishing it. Expect him to remain formally neutral (and largely de facto neutral as well) until the nomination is a foregone conclusion. And without him, expect the establishment to stay solidly behind Clinton, with a minority also remaining neutral.
I believe Warren understands all of the above. As such I do not believe she will run, unless Hillary stumbles profoundly or in the unlikely event Hillary bows out. But I think Warren is posturing, and will continue to posture, because:
(A) She loves the limelight and the semi-celebrity status
(B) If the unlikely does occur (Hillary falters and/or bows out), she will automatically become the front runner
(C) She is setting herself up to be Hillary’s runningmate and/or the frontrunner for 2020 if Hillary loses the general election.
I offer the above lengthy musings because I think too many on the right are blindsided by Warren’s emergence and her worshipful admiration by a small contingent of progressive activists. But she is a red herring. A passionate speech about Cromnibus (which again, few outside of politics junkies across the spectrum, know of or care about) does not change this fact. I implore us all to keep our eyes on the ball. And the ball is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Word for word what you write about Warren could be said about Ted Cruz, from a Republican perspective.
Cruz is seen as a fresh face and a viable alternative to the baggage Romney carries,
…he’s done little in the way of things that would give him the sort of experience required to be president, he’s a freshman senator who’s a pretty good speaker,
It’s as though the Republican Party asked Central Casting to send them a Reagan type, only younger and more obviously to the right on economic matters.
Ronald Reagan has already established that speeches should be the main criteria for selecting a president, so Cruz’ nomination may not seem so far-fetched to those who voted for Reagan.
I meant to say “from a Democrat perspective”
That’s pretty cheesy Chuck.
Now, where are we to run with it? — Your riposte?
BTW, Ronald Reagan had ALREADY run California as its governor for eight-years/ two terms.
Had been the head of the Actors Guild/ Union. (Across ALL ideological lines. Imagine how many gays he could have outed.)
And, of course, it was Reagan that broke open the tempo for liberalizing abortion rights for women. It was HIS signature that triggered the wave of state abortion statutes across the nation. This effect was due to the huge size of California and his reputation as a conservative. In contrast, Massachusetts had no follow-on political impact. (Liberals doing what liberals do.)
&&&&
It’s obvious by now that Reagan is the political ordinate that all Liberals are fixated upon.
We get that.
Cheers.
Well, the New York liberal birdbrains are all swooning over Warren, so brace yourselves.
How the hell did she get so prominent, anyway? Was it all the “fake Indian” stuff? I never remember hearing her name before about three years ago, and she hasn’t done bupkis, that I know of.
Flavor of the Minute.
“Warren is 65 to Clinton’s 67, so I’m speaking only metaphorically here when I write “younger.”
I think Warren will be a terrific candidate for the left. Warren may be only two years younger than Hillary but she looks 10 years younger. By the time a person reaches their sixties biological age is as important as chronological age. Also Warren appears to be a self made woman while Hillary rode Bill’s coat tails. Warren is a lefty professor from Harvard. What could a lefty not love about her?
Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have the baggage. Hillary Clinton has been up to her eyeballs in scandals since 1992, one way or another. While she gets a few points in the “experience” column (although none for actual leadership experience), there are so many things that can (and will) be dredged up.
It’s a shame that the Democrats can’t come up with someone younger and someone who actually has actual executive experience. Perhaps someone will step up in the next year. It’s pretty ridiculous that the party doesn’t seem to have any young, potential rising stars, as the Republicans always do. Sure, these younger potentials often fizzle out, but is there really such a dearth of leadership and charisma in the Democrat party?
On the other hand, they seem to do just fine without it.
The longer we get from the 80s, the more unreal and mythical Reagan seems to be. It’s so disappointing that there is no one with the leadership experience _and_ the charisma and speaking ability that the Great Communicator had. JFK had the inspirational oration thing down pat, but he’s even further back in time. While there are some good potential candidates in the GOP, none of them are as inspiring. Are we more jaded? Are we remembering these prior Presidents as better than they were (YouTube proves we aren’t in terms of speaking… I still remember tearing up at Reagan’s speech dedicating his presidential library).
I’m not trying to turn Reagan into more than he was, but he was a lot, and there has been no orator that comes even close to him since he left office. People tried to pretend Obama was, but I’ve never seen anything positive in his droning, platitudinous bafflegab. Ted Cruz has it to some extent, but as was stated above, he lacks the executive experience (but I wouldn’t rule him out). I wish Herman Cain hadn’t flamed out, because there was so much to like about him, a huge one being his success and experience _outside_ politics. Bobby Jindal still has potential as a candidate. I certainly like the man. I saw a FB friend posting something trying to paint him as a religious nut, so apparently the Left wants to pre-empt against him. Romney may run again. There’s a lot to like about Romney, and his experience is the best we’ve seen in a while, but he just doesn’t show the fire in the belly. He might have it, but if so, he’s too polite to show it.
Ackler at 12:52 am
What “strong indications” precisely, Geoffrey Britain?
300 Former Obama Staffers Urge Elizabeth Warren to Run for President
There is no way that, more than 300 hundred former Obama staffers write an open letter urging Elizabeth Warren to run for President in 2016 without Obama’s prior approval. That tells us that Obama will not be endorsing Hillary Clinton in 2015 (always unlikely). It also tells us that Obama has given his unofficial stamp of approval to Warren as his successor.
He’s doing so for two reasons; she’s a woman (the primary democrat rationale) and thus has ‘historical momentum’ on her side and because her radicalism makes her most likely to forward his ‘legacy’. If my analysis is accurate, it’s very likely that Obama will give Warren his extensive supporters list. He’ll direct lots of money into her coffers and lots of former Obama people will work on her Presidential campaign.
The polls you cite are comparing apples to oranges. The May 25 & 27—28, 2008 poll was taken 5 months before the election. The November of 2014 poll is taken TWO YEARS before the next election. A CNN article in Nov of 2006 reports that Obama’s approval numbers were at 17%. Rasmussen shows Warren currently at 17%… it would appear that it is you that has a “cavalier attitude towards history”.
I offer a challenge: show me one instance since modern polling began where a Presidential contender of either party constantly polled above 50% for his nomination, AND sought the nomination, but failed. If it has happened, I know not when.
Washington Post-ABC News poll Dec, 2006
“37. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of (NAME)? 12/11/06 – Summary Table
a. Hillary Clinton 56 NET
Support for Hillary Clinton combining:
First choice/Second choice
Hillary Clinton 60 NET”
I have yet to encounter a coherent explanation as to how Warren will successfully win over a significant number Democratic regulars.
She’ll do it exactly the way that Obama did it with the full support of the MSM and activist democrats.
The ideological activist hardcore of the Democratic party cannot, in itself, decide the nomination any more than the Tea Party can decide the GOP nomination.
Factually untrue on two levels. The ideological activist hardcore of the Democratic party did decide the nomination in 2008. And comparing the Tea Party and the GOP nomination is an invalid comparison because the Tea Party does not control the GOP but the ideological activist hardcore of the Democratic party does control the Democrat Party. And they do so because the democrats big donors are radical ideologues and politicians always listen to the money…
2008 proved that a significant portion of ordinary Democratic voters, as well as a contingent of the party establishment can be persuaded to vote for a radical because the MSM portrays that radical as a moderate in the general election and does not cover any information to the contrary.
Barack Obama won the 2008 nomination due to to his unique ability to combine the activist left with the trendy white urban yuppies with strong support from African-Americans. …He did so primarily because of his race.
Warren will be able to do the same, first because of her gender, secondarily her leftist activism and thirdly because the MSM will portray her as a moderate during the general election. Obama’s endorsement will ensure solid support from African-Americans. Hispanics are a given because she favors comprehensive immigration reform (she’ll give lip service to border security) and she doesn’t need white votes, proven by the fact that democrats haven’t gotten majority white support in a presidential election since 1996. Her gender and Harvard law professor resume however guarantees many white votes.
The party establishment will swing behind her because the Democratic establishment’s power is determined by its radical ideologue big donors, who control the party.
Democrats are chastised and pessimistic. They must deal with an unpopular president of their party, a tired, worn out Congressional leadership (all of the top Democrats in both houses are over 70) and a 2016 field which appears to favor the GOP
Ideologues never stay “chastised and pessimistic”. Obama still enjoys 40% approval. When ideologues are in control, “a tired, worn out Congressional leadership” can be easily replaced. A 2016 GOP field of Romney, Jeb Bush or Christy? One guaranteed to result in even more millions of conservatives refusing to vote than did so in 2012?
Obviously, Obama could change this dynamic radically. Were he to endorse Warren (so unlikely as to not even be fathomable) or even not so subtly exert influence on her behalf, a fair amount of the establishment may follow.
Obama’s endorsement just happened! 300 former Obama staffers do NOT sign a letter urging her to run without getting Obama’s prior approval!
Everything Obama does is ideological. Obama’s first priority is Obama and, securing his place in history requires moving the left’s agenda forward to “fundamental transformation” of America. The more permanent and fundamental that transformation the greater his ‘legacy’ on the left will be, which is ‘catnip’ to a ideological narcissist like Obama.
I implore us all to keep our eyes on the ball. And the ball is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The proposition that Warren will be the democrat nominee does not preclude the possibility that Clinton will prevail. The ‘ball’ is the left’s agenda regardless of who is the spokesperson.
blert says: Now, where are we to run with it? – Your riposte?
The point is that both Warren and Cruz are ideologues with little experience. They speak to their respective left and right bases with passion. But as you stated, Cruz doesn’t have the political experience of Reagan, and in my opinion would spark a third party break away candidate like Christie who could help elect Warren.
That would be disaster.
May the two dear delicate flowers of Democratland shreek, spit, claw and scream each other to a frothy, overexposed tie. These two aged pathologically bottomless holes are the best the Lib-Left can do after His Infantile Majesty?? Ooooohhhhhhhhh….I just LOVE IT!!
“2008 proved that a significant portion of ordinary Democratic voters, as well as a contingent of the party establishment can be persuaded to vote for a radical because the MSM portrays that radical as a moderate in the general election and does not cover any information to the contrary.”
We have seen this in action. It is almost a leftist meme that the Evil Right/Republicans/GOP/old rich white people are WAAAAAYYY more right than they used to be. Why, it’s they, the progressive left, who are the moderates, standing right there in the same spot where they’ve always been! All that distance between them and the average conservative voter? That 100% because conservatives are either so stupid that they vote R blindly, or willingly have reverted to medieval times in their beliefs.
Anyone older than 15 or 20 should have the personal life experience to know that this is absurdly stupid, but then again, watch how since 2012 the far left went from making fun of the right for still thinking that Russians were the bad guys to making fun of the right because they imagine that we love Putin. If any of them recognize the complete flip in less than about two years, they deny it. And of course the media says that we have always been at war with Eurasia.
“The point is that both Warren and Cruz are ideologues with little experience.” Chuck
Since when is allegiance to the Constitution and this country’s founding principles… proof of being an ‘ideologue’?
Kyndyll,
Anyone older than 10 (6?) has had the “leftist meme that the Evil Right/Republicans/GOP/old rich white people are WAAAAAYYY more right than they used to be” drilled into their heads by their teachers, peers and associates and the mass media for their entire lives. Arguably, it’s a testament to reality that anyone survives it.
In re Ted Cruz as inexperienced — no argument.
However, he is principled, in a way that neither Warren nor Obama could aspire to in their wildest dreams… and he’s willing to fight hard for his principles, against the entirety of his own party if need be. He’s already done this multiple times, as a FRESHMAN Senator.
In short, he’s got integrity, and he’s got guts. I wish he had executive experience too, but in a pinch, I’ll take a candidate with integrity and guts over one without.
If you want integrity, guts, AND executive experience, then we’re talking about Scott Walker. I like him a lot. he’s not afraid to fight when the whole world is against him, and he gets results.
If you want integrity, guts, executive experience, and made-for-TV charisma… well, there I’m afraid I can’t help you.
On second thought, it occurs to me that a Republican to watch closely — albeit not for 2016 — is Sen. Joni Ernst. She has the executive experience, as a Lt. Col. in the National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve. I suspect she has the guts and integrity, and I’m pretty sure she has the charisma. We’ll see what she does in the Senate.
I would hope that she serves out her six years before trying for higher office. (She can afford to; she’s 44.)
If she runs, the media will no doubt re-play the Sarah Palin playbook on her. Stay tuned.
Though I know little of him, Gov Mike Pence looks like a possibility. What do others have to say of him?
Elizabeth Warren puts me in mind of George McGovern. Of course the country has drifted much further left since 1972, but unless the MSM can completely erase her past, as they did with Obama, I think she would probably lose big. Even LIVs are getting fed up with leftist pacifism in the face of increasing Islamist terror threats.
Bingo! We are one terrorist attack on a school away from having the Dems end up in the political desert for decades. Because we must empathize with our enemies! I don’t think the parents of children killed in a terrorist attack on a school are going to be all that empathic with the muzzie perpetrators.
Imagine a 9/11 type attack on NYC today. Think Mayor de Bolshevik has the cojones to rip up a $10M check (with strings attached) from some Saudi prince? No, de Bolshevik would cash the check and hold a candlelight vigil for all the muzzies in the City to show he ‘stands with them’. But like the whole race mongering of de Bolshevik, you don’t pick sides in a race war as your skin color picks your side for you, so muzzies don’t care how empathetic you are or how much you stand ‘with them’ because, as we see in Iraq, they’ll cut your head off anyway. Just because, Infidel.
JJ- I hope you are right about Warren being McGovern. On another note though, while he would have been a terrible prexy, McGovern was an authentic hero and an honorable man. Warren- not so much.