2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Elizabeth Warren won’t run and Jeb Bush won’t win
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/_2016_election_jeb_bush_won_t_win_the_republican_nomination_elizabeth_warren.htmlWhere things have changed are in the internal dynamics of the party. A year ago, the left of the Democratic Party didnt have an ideological leader. Now, it arguably does in the form of Warren. Many see this as a prelude to a presidential run, but its just as likely that she tries to institutionalize her influence as a party broker, someone who speaks for liberal Democrats and can claim concessions in return for support. Or, as Dana Milbank argues for the Washington Post, a left-wing analogue to former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who now serves as president of the conservative Heritage Foundation.
If thats true, then the ambiguity of Warrens status in the presidential raceIs she running?is a strategic choice. The more Clinton, or anyone else, is worried about a Warren insurgency, the more likely it is that that person will try to adopt her positions or assuage her concerns as an ideological leader. No, the eventual Democratic nominee wont be Elizabeth Warren, but she might sound like her.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)But her policy history shows that she's no progressive.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)She has very low ratings from business and conservative organizations. Civil liberty groups, reproductive rights, entitlements and environmental groups all rank her rather highly. Her Education and employment ratings are erratic.
Sounds rather progressive to me.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)There's more, but you get the idea.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)... of it and run it on Fox. Not impressed.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)State Dept. Hid Contractor's Ties to Keystone XL Pipeline Company
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/keystone-xl-contractor-ties-transcanada-state-department
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p1
(Clinton's) also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.
Most of us not in the US Senate knew the war in Iraq was a total sham back in 2001, just as it proved to be. Millions of us marched in the streets.
Pro-H1B.
Pro-GMOs.
http://www.nationofchange.org/hillary-clinton-cheerleads-biotech-and-gmos-140517877
Hillary's sucking up to Wall Street's money spigot is well documented. Here's a sample ...
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/11/01/goldman-sachs-gives-hillary-clinton-almost-half-a-million-dollars-in-less-than-a-week/
She talks populism, but hobnobs with Wall Street.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem
Persondem
(1,936 posts)You forgot to link to Kevin Bacon in that scrambled poster which doesn't have much to do with HRC at all. It even throws Quaddafi in there to make it look worse.
Your TPP link has zero to with TPP. The article does show her advocating for US businesses in other countries, creating or safe guarding thousands of US jobs in the process. As for TPP, she may have started that process but it has been out of her influence for years so she can't be faulted for the final product.
The GS articles show that the Clinton Foundation made some nice bucks, not HRC. The CF does some really good things with that money. I doubt the thousands of women they help around the world care that the $ came from GS.
2001 was a tricky time. A lot of dems voted for war.
Thanks for trying but still doesn't beat her actual voting record and organizational ratings over her years in the senate IMO.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Yet I and millions of others knew what was really happening. The complicity of "a lot of Dems" does not excuse Hillary.
Sorry if facts are disrupting your preconceived notions.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)And after 30 years in the public sphere, that ain't so bad. I bet you voted for Kerry, didn't you? Twice. Or did you vote for that slime ball Edwards in the primary? So you must have forgiven their war votes.
I also bet that I spent more time examining your links than you did examining her Project Vote Smart info. What was that about facts and preconceived notions?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And realistically it didn't get approved so even with all that "inside dealing" nothing was accomplished.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Hillary! 51% or 52%, actually! All it is, is name recognition at this point.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)She's been in bed with the bankers more than she's been on the outs with them.
I'm beginning to think the major choice we have in 2016 (and had in the last few elections) is whether this country is run by Big Oil (R-fascist) or Big Banking (D-not as fascist). That seems to be driving the economic policy of the last several presidencies.
I make most of my living from income from Big Oil. I'd rather take my chances under the less fascist in other areas Big Banking.
brooklynite
(93,878 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)candidates declare, before candidates state their policies, is just a name recognition contest.
I guess that's all we really are going for, though, right?
spin
(17,493 posts)She's not a very charismatic person and she sometimes suffers from foot in mouth disease. Joe Biden also has this problem too but he gets away with it because he is so likable.
The Democratic Party needs to get out the youth vote to win which is one reason Obama won twice. I'm not sure that Hillary can get the support she needs from younger voters. "Vote for Grandma" may not work well. Also the fact that she can say, "I'm Bill's wife and if you elect me you will get two for the price of one" may not work either. She might say, "It my turn and I will be the first female President" and that should get some votes from women.. That may be her biggest selling point.
I personally don't want to see anymore Clintons or Bushes in the White House. Surely there are qualified people in both parties who might run and win and be good presidents. We don't need to turn our presidency into a dynasty.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And able to do the job as president.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If he gets in the race (as it appears he will) and wins the nomination, yes he will have an uphill battle because of his last name. However given the resources and the involvement of Karl Rove it will be one fucking nasty GE. Obama had a good grassroots organization, the resources, and smart people to win both the primary and GE in 2008. Also that was pre-Citizen's United. In 2012, Obama had the power of incumbancy with a crackpot Mormon that had an incompetent campaign running against him. The next time we may not get so lucky.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)La
tosoris
(23 posts)4dsc
(5,787 posts)The more I hear from Hillary or lack there of these days the more I like what I hear from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. I don't want concessions from Hillary camps but rather a complete change of programs for her.