Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 08:12 PM Mar 2015

Can Elizabeth Warren be the new Ted Kennedy?

A nice piece on Warren, originally published in the Boston Globe.


U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren knows what it takes to go viral — just turn left.

A confrontation with Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen will do it. So will a sly comment on MSNBC, that she’s still waiting to see how progressive Hillary Clinton will be as a presidential candidate.

From the Massachusetts perspective, Warren represents the Ted Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party. It’s a fitting ascension, since Warren holds the seat Kennedy held for 46 years.

. . .

In a recent interview with Yahoo News, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah said of his colleague from Massachusetts, “We’ve become friends. I think she would like to have a relationship with me like Kennedy had. I like her. I think she’s a very bright woman. She’s certainly playing the media in a beautiful way.” Asked if he believes Warren can attract left-wing support and still be a compromiser, Hatch said, “We’ll see … I’d like to see her become the new Kennedy if she can.”

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/294687611.html
48 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can Elizabeth Warren be the new Ted Kennedy? (Original Post) BainsBane Mar 2015 OP
Yes!!! zappaman Mar 2015 #1
I devoutly hope so. hifiguy Mar 2015 #2
"sly" "playing the media" (conservative) WAPO "exulted" Hmmm. merrily Mar 2015 #3
For most people, meaning those who want govt to function BainsBane Mar 2015 #4
No kidding. Not the point of my post or, I suspect, of Ms. Vennochio's article, either. merrily Mar 2015 #5
I think it's a flattering piece BainsBane Mar 2015 #10
The real intent wasn't to flatter and what Hatch did to Kennedy is relevant. Sorry you missed both merrily Mar 2015 #14
Wake me Caretha Mar 2015 #11
Democrats working across the aisle does not mean starting at center right. merrily Mar 2015 #15
In this era, with every Republican being totally unreasonable and unreachable, Ken Burch Mar 2015 #35
That may be true BainsBane Mar 2015 #38
Obviously, worrying about presidential politics isn't ever going to be enough. Ken Burch Mar 2015 #42
I like your truthapaloozza festival idea BainsBane Mar 2015 #44
Elizabeth Warren can and will rise higher. n/t Autumn Mar 2015 #6
Perhaps BainsBane Mar 2015 #7
B-b-but...we need a STRONG LEADER! YoungDemCA Mar 2015 #13
Actually, we need a wise, strong, skillful leader who puts the 99% above himself or herself, above merrily Mar 2015 #20
For a long time, Democrats were in the majority--and Kennedy did not start at center right. merrily Mar 2015 #16
Um, I would much rather she be the Original Liz Warren. We already have Great Compromisers. djean111 Mar 2015 #8
Without compromise there is no governance BainsBane Mar 2015 #9
IOW Caretha Mar 2015 #12
"Nervous" is not necessarily the word I would have chosen, but I do take your point. merrily Mar 2015 #17
Try reading BainsBane Mar 2015 #19
The fact you Caretha Mar 2015 #21
You don't know the first thing about my principles or my views BainsBane Mar 2015 #24
Stop Caretha Mar 2015 #26
"A real conversation" BainsBane Mar 2015 #28
Whether or not you have principles, Bain, you do have the tendency Ken Burch Mar 2015 #30
I don't believe I claimed otherwise BainsBane Mar 2015 #40
Deal Caretha Mar 2015 #34
The reason so few of us "know the first thing about (your) principles or (your) views" Ken Burch Mar 2015 #31
You can't be serious BainsBane Mar 2015 #37
I actually agree with most of what you just posted there. It was very eloquent. Ken Burch Mar 2015 #41
I have suggested just that countless times BainsBane Mar 2015 #43
That's a lot of straw men (and personal) insults, given what Caretha's post actually said. merrily Mar 2015 #22
What did her post say? BainsBane Mar 2015 #23
No one lectured you. And Caretha's post said very little. You, however, merrily Mar 2015 #25
This is becoming increasingly tiresome BainsBane Mar 2015 #27
We don't always to settle for half-, third-, or quarter-measures to "make things happen" though. Ken Burch Mar 2015 #33
Let us sincerly hope not! whistler162 Mar 2015 #18
Hopefully not the next Ted Kennedy-as-presidential candidate, though. Ken Burch Mar 2015 #29
No, but she doesn't have a Chappaquiddick in her background BainsBane Mar 2015 #32
The vicious tactics of the Carter people did him in, too. Ken Burch Mar 2015 #36
Well, his run against a sitting President was unorthodox BainsBane Mar 2015 #39
Elizabeth Warren just needs to keep on being Elizabeth Warren. KMOD Mar 2015 #45
Nah. MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #46
So now you don't even like Warren? BainsBane Mar 2015 #47
I love Warren MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #48
 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
2. I devoutly hope so.
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 08:18 PM
Mar 2015

Big shoes to fill, but Senator Warren clearly has the moxie and courage to make a hell of a run at it.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
3. "sly" "playing the media" (conservative) WAPO "exulted" Hmmm.
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 08:27 PM
Mar 2015

Sounds like Joan Vennochi and Orrin Hatch may have come to bury Warren, not to praise her.

Speaking of which, if you listened and watched carefully when Hatch was supposedly eulogizing Kennedy at the Library service, it was a good thing knives in his back could no longer hurt the newly late Senator. Had the places been reversed, Kennedy would never have done that to Hatch. But then, Kennedy would never have done this to Hatch, either.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, cited a bridge too far from Brooklyn in the Clarence Thomas confirmation debate yesterday, and later apologized to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., for the goof.

Hatch was trying to knock down charges that the White House had orchestrated the attacks on law professor Anita Hill's credibility, saying at one point that "if anybody believes that," then there is a bridge up "in Massachusetts" they might want to buy.

Later, the apologetic Hatch returned to the Senate floor to say the statement had been a mistake and to ask that it be amended to read a bridge ''in Brooklyn."

Hatch didn't come right out and say so, but clearly he realized his crack could be construed as a low blow at Kennedy, who in 1969 drove a car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick Island, killing a young woman passenger.
WASHINGTON —

Hatch didn't realize that before he opened his nasty piehole on the record? Really? Took the lowest, most gratuitous blow at the man who was supposed to be his best Democratic friend in the Senate?

Yeah, I'm sure Hatch is just pining away for another Ted Kennedy. Something tells me the same is true of Slanter Vennochio, whose point basically is that, at bottom, Kennedy was a centrist compromiser and Warren needs to follow that lead.

Fuck both their jealous asses, sez I.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
4. For most people, meaning those who want govt to function
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 08:29 PM
Mar 2015

an ability to work across the isle is not a bad thing.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
5. No kidding. Not the point of my post or, I suspect, of Ms. Vennochio's article, either.
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 08:30 PM
Mar 2015

Few skilled writers would describe a United States Senator whom they truly admire as "sly" or use the other sly slanting mechanisms Vennochio used in this article.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
10. I think it's a flattering piece
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:14 PM
Mar 2015

and Hatch's comments here are only positive. Your excerpt about Anita Hill has no bearing on this at all.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
14. The real intent wasn't to flatter and what Hatch did to Kennedy is relevant. Sorry you missed both
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:27 PM
Mar 2015

despite my post.

BTW, thank heaven Kennedy knew that, when working across the aisle with the right, it's nearly insane to start at the center right, unless the right is really where you wanted to end up all along.

 

Caretha

(2,737 posts)
11. Wake me
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:24 PM
Mar 2015

when that starts to work....seems working across the aisle has a new definition since Obama was elected.

Give no quarter at this hour.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
35. In this era, with every Republican being totally unreasonable and unreachable,
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:41 PM
Mar 2015

it's pointless to even try to work "across the aisle&quot not "the isle", which only applies if you're a character on LOST) is pointless and useless.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
38. That may be true
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:28 PM
Mar 2015

But then why even worry about who is elected President? You spend a lot of time arguing about something that you've just said can amount to nothing because of the GOP.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
42. Obviously, worrying about presidential politics isn't ever going to be enough.
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:47 PM
Mar 2015

There's also the continuing need to worry about politics on the congressional and state legislative level(there needs to be a major left push to flip state legislatures in order to end both congressional gerrymandering and enact electoral reform on any significant level), on initiative and referendum politics (whichare probably the only routes available to fighting corporate control of politics and life at present) and on organizing for change on the local level.

There is also a lot of of educational work that needs to be done...I've argued for education festivals("Truthapaloozas", I've sometimes called them)in which alternative non-corporate facts can be spread around the country using various forms of art and popular culture.

A lot of work needs to be done, on a lot of levels. and new tactics are constantly needed(Occupy was one set of tactics, but something else is needed now, and probably a lot of different somethings at that, given the wide variety of political situation organizers and activists face in different areas of the country.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
44. I like your truthapaloozza festival idea
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:39 AM
Mar 2015

I think we would do well to borrow some of the Tea Party's strategy. They have been enormously influential very quickly. Yes, Koch money was behind it but none of it would have gone anywhere without the commitment of conservatives willing to get out and work to push their agenda. We need to demonstrate that same commitment.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
7. Perhaps
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 08:35 PM
Mar 2015

but Ted Kennedy had a greater influence on the direction of the nation than many presidents. A president serves a term or two and is gone. Kennedy was an influential Senator for nearly 50 years.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
20. Actually, we need a wise, strong, skillful leader who puts the 99% above himself or herself, above
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:40 PM
Mar 2015

party and above re-election concerns. I don't know that we've ever had one of those.

And, as long as we so gratefully settle for ever so much less, we probably never will.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
16. For a long time, Democrats were in the majority--and Kennedy did not start at center right.
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:31 PM
Mar 2015

Kennedy also opposed the efforts of both Nixon and Carter to put a plan for universal health care into effect. As to Nixon, Kennedy admitted, near the end of his life, that he had blocked it because he wanted a Democratic President to pass it. Though Kennedy did not also mention blocking Carter's plan, Carter spoke of it. I imagine he blocked Carter because he (Kennedy) thought he could become President and pass it himself. As a result of that kind of blind partisanship and blind personal Presidential ambition, Americans lost out on something they desperately needed.

So, let's learn every lesson we possibly can from Kennedy's years in the Senate and not only the one that fits our sales pitch.

Also, I've never heard this reason cited for any Senator other than Warren. No one urged Hillary or Kerry--and probably not even Kennedy--to stay in the Senate rather than run for President (and/or become Secretary of State) on the ground they'd accomplish more in the Senate. Yet, it's so widespread among DU's right, it's laughable.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
9. Without compromise there is no governance
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 08:53 PM
Mar 2015

This isn't about your cable news entertainment. It's about accomplishing things for the good of the country. If she couldn't compromise, she wouldn't be a good senator.

 

Caretha

(2,737 posts)
12. IOW
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:25 PM
Mar 2015

Elizabeth, compromise all your principals, your knowledge etc. because BainsBane is nervous.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
19. Try reading
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:39 PM
Mar 2015

She does compromise now. If she didn't she wouldn't be a decent senator. As much as you think the function of elected officials is to express your anger, they are actually there to govern. Some of us actually want to see reform and care about making things happen, not just reaffirming our egos with soundbites on cable entertainment. Your attitude is one of someone who doesn't want government to function so that nothing is accomplished. Either that. or you don't know how a bill becomes law. Either way, your commitment to political irrelevance bores me.

 

Caretha

(2,737 posts)
21. The fact you
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:50 PM
Mar 2015

have no principals bores me. All I have to do to figure out how you think or don't is to read yahoo replies to the news.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
24. You don't know the first thing about my principles or my views
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:09 PM
Mar 2015

All you are doing is projecting, and it says a great deal about who you are and nothing about me.

 

Caretha

(2,737 posts)
26. Stop
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:15 PM
Mar 2015

I'm not projecting, but your nastiness and holier than thou makes it difficult to have a real conversation with you.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
28. "A real conversation"
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:23 PM
Mar 2015

Like this: .

IOW

Elizabeth, compromise all your principals, your knowledge etc. because BainsBane is nervous.


and then:
The fact you

have no principals bores me. All I have to do to figure out how you think or don't is to read yahoo replies to the news.


There is a first for everything, and this is the first time I have being accused of having no principles. And to see it is all based on an observation on how laws are passed.

I would be grateful if you would spare me any further "real conversation" on your part.
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
30. Whether or not you have principles, Bain, you do have the tendency
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:27 PM
Mar 2015

to act as if you are "the only grown-up" in any discussion and that everyone should accept that the discussion is over when YOU say it is.

That needs to stop. You are no more entitled to talk down to people here than anyone else is. You're just another poster with another set of views, and you represent no one but yourself, just as the rest of us represent ourselves.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
40. I don't believe I claimed otherwise
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:40 PM
Mar 2015

I have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. I certainly did not accuse her of lacking principle. There are two ways to end discussions, simply stop reading or put someone on ignore. I will do either, depending on the circumstances. When people make the discussion personal rather than about the subject matter, I see no reason to continue it. That is my right.

 

Caretha

(2,737 posts)
34. Deal
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:36 PM
Mar 2015

since you are so good at quoting, do you find it all funny how you did not quote all the insults you hurled at me in your replies?

Instead of conversing, you lay out brick walls. Don't bother to reply. I'm through.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
31. The reason so few of us "know the first thing about (your) principles or (your) views"
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:30 PM
Mar 2015

is that you rarely express them here on DU.

Mainly, you attack people for being too far left for your personal comfort zone and you appear to be trying to act as an enforcer for the right-of-center(i.e., "moderate&quot party establishment, the ones who want us to keep running on the same bland nothingburger of a platform for the rest of eternity-even though they know that running on a bland "centrist" platform means we can never ever set the agenda or truly defeat the far right.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
37. You can't be serious
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:21 PM
Mar 2015

This is a long post, but I take challenges to my integrity very seriously and have a great deal to say.

I don't attack people for being "left." I'm a Marxist, for Christ sake. The difference is I understand the nature of the capitalist state, and now I get lectured by people who can't tell Marxist analysis from the Sunday newspaper.

I demonstrate my principles often in my posts. I post about social justice, violence, human equality, feminism, racism, empire, and war, even Marxist theory. I clearly express my principles in those threads. If I did not have principles, I would engage in group think and go along with the prevailing view at the time. That is something I have never done. What I do not do is focus entirely on contests among political elites. I know that social change doesn't emanate from the presidency down. As someone with training in social history and social movements in particular, I know that social change comes from the bottom up, and that politicians only respond when compelled to by the people. You see, focusing on the presidency to the exclusion of particular causes reflects a conservative (not as in GOP but in the more traditional meaning, as in great man view of history and social change) worldview. For example, people present FDR as a savior, the only real Democrat, yet show no awareness that FDR acted because he was forced to by widespread social movements. He saved the capitalist system by creating the New Deal that has assuaged many of the excesses of capitalist exploitation. If not for him, it is possible the country might have turned to social revolution at that time. He made sure it did not.

I did not grow up upper-middle or middle-class, so I have never been among the people who expected government to cater to me. I expect for people who grew up in more advantageous circumstances, there probably was a time when they saw government representing their interests. It has never represented the poor, and the days some here hearken back to were a time when the majority of the population was denied basic civil rights and existed outside the body politic.

My academic background in the history of nation building and national identity also enables me to see national mythology at work. Much of the frustration I see here is from people who buy into the national mythology of government for the people and by the people and think that government's failure to serve the needs of common people is new. It is not new. It is endemic to the capitalist state, a state that was never intended to serve common people, which is clear from how the framers set up government. While it is true that the cash nexus between capital and state is more naked than in the past, the fundamental relationship is much the same. A key difference today is that capital is increasingly global, and its accumulation is no longer dependent on nation. That has generated a new host of contradictions that we are witnessing today.

I don't see a lot of principal in endless fixation on contests among political elites. I do not see disputes about individual politicians as reflective of principle. In fact it avoids a discussion of broader and more systemic problems that cannot be solved by a President. When people identify one individual, like Clinton, as responsible for the ills of capitalism, it frustrates me because it reduces a systemic problem to a caricature and thus allows no possibility of addressing it. I consider that a very narrow political worldview.

I have never known of a politician in this country who expressed my views. The closest globally is Salvador Allende, but I know the nature of the country I live in. I look at electoral politics quite pragmatically: my principles are not expressed within the confines of the governmental structures of the capitalist state. When I was younger, I wouldn't identify as a Democrat for that reason and often voted third party. Bush changed that. He was so awful I realized I had to consistently vote for Democrats. I'm all for progressive reform of the party, and time and time again I have suggested that people get involved at the local level to make that happen. Expecting a president to spontaneously transform society is folly and impossible under the confines of our system.

I live in one of the most progressive states in the country, a state that has gotten a lot of press about its governor lately. Yet missed in that coverage is that we have the most politically engaged population in the country: not only do we have the highest voter participation rates in the country, we organize around issues like marriage equality, defeating voter ID and retaining election-day voter registration, an increase in the minimum wage linked to inflation, requiring employers to pay sick leave, funding for the arts and parks. That is all possible because the population organized for it, not because we waited for a governor to give it to us. If we are to have progressive reform, people need to do that all around the country. Sitting back and waiting for the perfect president to bestow it is a fool's errand. Worse yet, people who think that not voting constitutes a form of activism only make the situation worse.

I think part of what is happening here is we have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes left. For me, leftism is Marxism, socialism. It is not liberalism, and it is not embodied in a particular US presidential candidate or arguments over individual public figures. And in fact when that is accompanied by hostility to the rights and interest of the subaltern (eg. racial justice, gender equality, and full civil rights for LGBT), I consider it right-wing.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
41. I actually agree with most of what you just posted there. It was very eloquent.
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:40 PM
Mar 2015

Thing is, in most of the posts of yours I've seen, you aren't talking like that.

It generally sounds like you're just being dismissive of people for expecting things from the politicians they helped elect.

If you placed a greater emphasis on the "we need to work from below" message(which is the most important part of your message) you'd get a much better response(btw, you shouldn't assume that the people you are arguing with would reject the need to work from below-mainly, as I read them, they are expecting the politicians they helped elect to make it clear that they(the politicians)will actually be open to pressure from below.

I think you'd get a better response if you focused more on the continuing need to organize and create pressure part of your analysis. There's a lot of openness to that here, and a lot of people who are trying to do that. They may not all call themselves Marxists(partly because too many Americans associate the term "Marxism" with Marxism-Leninism(i.e,. the "actually existing socialism" of the USSR from Stalin through Brezhnev) but I think they can be won over to a program that incorporates the best of what Marx called for(including workers' control of the means of production-which these days is as likely to be a software company as an old-style factory). It's in how we say it and how we find the way to make a transformational program sound positive and achievable.

Do you live in Oregon, btw? I'm asking that because you mentioned the governor. I'm from Salem originally(was born in Newport but moved away with my family when I was four or so).

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
43. I have suggested just that countless times
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:36 AM
Mar 2015

and I get a lot of responses about how they shouldn't have to. They elected Obama to do x, y, and z. Certainly people can be angry at Washington and expect things from politicians, and to a certain extent its understandable, but individualizing it to be all about a particular member of the political elite is missing the problem. To then vest all hope in a new political messiah is a cycle destined for perpetual failure. I also find it increasingly difficult to discern frustrated Democrats from GOP ratfuckers, and it bothers me that the former use the same arguments, and even sources, as the latter.

Like many people here, I agree money in politics is the single greatest problem. However, unlike many I don't see defeating Hillary Clinton as a solution to that. Because of SCOTUS, we need a constitutional amendment. If we are to organize on DU, I would like it to be around that. It needs to provide for public financing exclusively, or moneyed interests will find their way around it. We would need Constitutional lawyers to write the amendment for it to work out.
I tried to organize people to support mandatory background checks on gun sales, but that went over like a lead balloon. It was then I discovered that most of the gungeon wants nothing but more guns and misrepresents their openness to reforms. I also posted threads encouraging people to contact the senate about taking rape reporting out of the military chain of command. I think one or two might have called their representatives.

I do see language that is close to socialist in some posts. I saw one just today, but they present themselves as the true Democrats and those who disagree with them as "Third Way." That Third Way label is clearly a slur and offends me greatly, as does centrist. The ahistorical nature of it also frustrates me because they construct an ideal past where they imagine the Democratic Party opposed capital, which of course it never has. And so many of these threads seem to be about people demonstrating how superior they see themselves and those who agree with them compared to others. (I suppose I'm guilty of that as well, at least according to your other post, though I don't have full awareness I'm doing it). And it's usually about a particular individual--like Clinton or Greenwald--which I see as a lot of noise about nothing. People invade threads on unrelated subjects to insist it's some cryptic message to elect Clinton. I even saw one person insult an LGBT man who has faced discrimination his entire life as "siding with the 1% and Goldman Sacks because he didn't share the poster's hatred for Hillary Clinton. I'm sorry but I can't find anything constructive to say to such people. It's just a bridge too far for me.

As for developing ideas about control of the means of production, I guess I'm not sure how that can ultimately lead to anything but a theoretical discussion. While I used to enjoy such discussions when I was very young, I'm too old, cranky and impatient for that now. I want to focus on things that are concrete and achievable, as we have done in Minnesota. That's where I live. Our governor, Mark Dayton, has gotten a lot of favorable press recently.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
23. What did her post say?
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:01 PM
Mar 2015

It claimed that I wanted Warren to compromise because I felt uncomfortable with her views, a claim made up out of thin air that in no way responded to anything I said. And what else am I to make of comments from people who insist compromise is bad? No law, not a single one, gets passed without compromise. That is basic civics.

She made it personal for no reason, so don't lecture me. She doesn't know the first thing about my views. She didn't even bother to inquire.

This thread is typical of the bullshit around here. A flattering story about a Democratic Senator leads to yet more attacks on Democrats, which from what I can tell is the only thing a lot of people here care about.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
25. No one lectured you. And Caretha's post said very little. You, however,
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:10 PM
Mar 2015

apparently read a lot into it. She never insisted all compromise was bad. That was your condescending interpretation of what little she actually said. And if you think that piece about Warren is flattering, that does not say a lot for your knowledge of slanting.

As for making it personal, you seem to be the expert on that.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
27. This is becoming increasingly tiresome
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:16 PM
Mar 2015

The only thing I said was that compromise was part of governance, Her rant was based entirely on that point, including her assertion that I have no principles. There was no other point made, and therefore nothing else for her to respond to. The fact she got so angry at the mere mention of compromise and said it demonstrated an absence of principles was a pretty definitive statement on how she sees compromise. Whatever. Go wage your war somewhere else. This is supremely boring. If I'm so offensive to you, put me on ignore and be done with it.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
33. We don't always to settle for half-, third-, or quarter-measures to "make things happen" though.
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:35 PM
Mar 2015

Sometimes you can make things happen by actually encouraging the participation of voices from below and by using mass public pressure to get things done.

It doesn't always have to be a cynical backroom deal with the devil.

It was settling for the deal(even though we usually couldn't GET anyone to actually make a deal)that lost us our chance to create a long-term progressive-left realignment after 2009. Our leaders always banked their fires, always ceded control of the debate, always left the hate attacks and lies from the other side unchallenged-and THAT is why we got rolled in 2010 and 2014.

Now Obama has learned, and is fighting back-but let's face it, it's now too late to matter for his administration.

If HRC gets elected and does the same thing(and, based on Bill's administration, there's no reason to think she won't, since she's not going to be more progressive than Bill on anything and if she diverges from his policies at all will only do so by going further to the right)our party will probably go extinct sometime in the mid 2020's, and it will deserve to.

We need to lead, and we need to encourage people to fight on from below.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
29. Hopefully not the next Ted Kennedy-as-presidential candidate, though.
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:24 PM
Mar 2015

That did not go well for Teddy at all.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
32. No, but she doesn't have a Chappaquiddick in her background
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:31 PM
Mar 2015

That is what did him in.

I also think the piece a reminder that not everything rests on the presidency. While Kennedy never became president, he was more influential for a longer period of time than many presidents. Democrats have a tendency to want to make everyone we like President. I can't help thinking Obama would have been a better President with more experience. But leaving aside that, I think it's important to recognize that the Presidency is only one office, and that power is wielded through many other ways in our system: The Senate, the House, and in State Government. I think Democrats give up a lot of influence, particularly on the ideological direction of the country, by focusing on the presidency to the exclusion of other branches of government. Think of how many threads we've had on the presidential election since 2012, while the right has amassed power through mid-terms and state elections. That is an impediment to the kind of progressive reform many here would like to see.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
36. The vicious tactics of the Carter people did him in, too.
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:52 PM
Mar 2015

I admire Jimmy Carter, but I've never quite been able to forgive him for letting his campaign get large groups of people in Chicago(a city that loved Teddy)to shout "murderer!, murderer!" at Teddy as he drove by in a motorcade during the Illinois primary. There is no way that Teddy deserved that(at worst, Chappaquiddick was an accident-he didn't MEAN to kill that young woman, for God's sakes).

The other things that I think caused Teddy's downfall in 1980 were:

1)His sentimental decision to put Stephen Smith, his brother-in-law and Bobby's 1968 campaign manager)in charge of the campaign. By that point, Smith was out-of-touch with modern presidential campaigning.

2)Teddy's continuing issues with alcohol and his, well let's just say it, severely flexible attitude toward monogamy(which might have been overlooked in Jack and Bobby's day, but was no longer considered acceptable by the late 1970's as the private lives of politicians became fair game and a subject of open discussion).

3)The sense I think a lot of voters had that Teddy's heart really wasn't quite in it. He was passionately liberal, but there seemed to be a lack of enthusiasm(which was understandable from a human standpoint-look where seeking the presidency had gotten his last two brothers).

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
39. Well, his run against a sitting President was unorthodox
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:32 PM
Mar 2015

to say the least. I wasn't a fan of Carter at the time, though he's been a great ex-president, but such contested primaries against incumbents are rare.

I agree with your assessment of Kennedy's shortcomings. I remember in particular his sitting almost silent through the Anita Hill hearings. With his history, what could he say?

 

KMOD

(7,906 posts)
45. Elizabeth Warren just needs to keep on being Elizabeth Warren.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:40 AM
Mar 2015

She is a strong voice for all of us, and I adore her.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
46. Nah.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:12 AM
Mar 2015

A compromise between far-right and insane-right is not an attractive solution.

We need an FDR, Lincoln or Washington at this point, someone to pull us out of the giant manure pile we've waded into.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can Elizabeth Warren be t...