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

BeyondGeography

(39,284 posts)
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 11:36 AM Jan 2019

Elizabeth Warren has something Hillary Clinton didn't

The line to get into the final event of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s weekend tour of Iowa began forming 2½ hours in advance. Standing at the very front were Kristin Wesner and her daughter Alaina. Arriving for the Sunday morning forum extra-early was Alaina’s idea. Despite the January chill, the 9-year-old wanted to be absolutely sure she would get a prime spot to see the all-but-announced Democratic presidential candidate.

Her mom, Kristin, a psychology professor, is hoping Warren can do what Hillary Clinton, whom she supported in 2016, could not: be the first woman to make it all the way to the White House. Though there may be upward of two dozen presidential contenders coming through Iowa over the 13 months between now and its first-in-the-nation caucuses, “she’s at the top of my list right now,” Kristin said.

The political-insider chatter is already suggesting that Warren might have a “likability” problem, just like the one that supposedly was Clinton’s downfall. And if two or three other women join the race, which appears likely, they will no doubt hear that as well. As a headline on the humorous McSweeney’s website put it: “I Don’t Hate Women Candidates — I Just Hated Hillary and Coincidentally I’m Starting to Hate Elizabeth Warren.”

Judging by the packed houses at Warren’s events over the weekend, however, insiders may be selling Democratic voters short. “People decided 20 years ago whether they liked Hillary Clinton, back when her husband was president,” Kristin said. On the other hand, she sees Warren offering a fresher appeal: “Her message is consistent, and she’s looking out for the middle class.”

...Warren represents a stark contrast from Clinton in a more fundamental way. While Clinton had a 20-point plan ready for every question, she failed to weave it all together into anything that resembled a coherent rationale for her candidacy. At one point, her campaign, floundering to articulate what she stood for, put together a document of 84 ideas for slogans. By the end, her message seemed to be only that Trump was not fit to be president.

Warren, on the other hand, diagnoses virtually every issue — from student debt to climate change, gun control to retirement security — with the same blunt prescription. “The answer is corruption, pure and simple. We have a government that works for those at the top,” she says. “When we get organized, when we push back, we can make some real change.” It is noticeable that Trump’s name rarely crosses her lips, a sign she believes this message can connect with some of the same frustrated middle-class voters who flocked to him in 2016.

More at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-is-no-hillary-clinton/2019/01/07/f15f9f70-11f7-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html?utm_term=.e181c86371c5
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

CousinIT

(9,151 posts)
1. Did TRUMP have a "20-point plan for every question and "weave it all together coherently"
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 11:44 AM
Jan 2019

What the HELL.

Why is Hillary or any other female being held to standards that any jackass with a penis is NOT?

She detailed MULTIPLE times in MULTIPLE way that yes, Trump was NOT fit to be President and she told us WHY in the debates. He is a PUPPET of Russia.

EDIT to remind people that Hillary WON the popular vote and resonated with THREE MILLION more people than Trump did.

still_one

(91,965 posts)
2. For FFS, can they just leave Hillary alone. The f**king press, and their f**king elite opinions
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 11:48 AM
Jan 2019

have been harassing and ridiculing her since the 90's when she first proposed her healthcare plan.


Hillary IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ANYMORE


Elizabeth Warren is her OWN PERSON. She does NOT need to be compared or contrasted to Hillary.


As an aside certain segments of the media are doing the same "likeability" attacks they did on Warren like they did on Hillary.

Misogyny and sexism permeates much of the media. That is evidenced by some of their reporting on Speaker Pelosi and Representative Ocasio-Cortez.




BeyondGeography

(39,284 posts)
3. The article is about why Warren just might be able to weather certain unfair attacks better than HRC
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 11:51 AM
Jan 2019

And it’s relevant for the very points you mention.

still_one

(91,965 posts)
10. I know, and you are right, and the author of the opinion piece is not a right winger. I was just
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 12:26 PM
Jan 2019

ranting.

Moostache

(9,895 posts)
4. No disagreement, just a note...
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 11:55 AM
Jan 2019

The press was on Hillary in Arkansas waaaaay before Bill ran for president (she was attacked for everything, constantly) ... she has been attacked and vilified her entire life, at every turn. The 2016 election theft and constant haranguing about her e-mails (instead of important or substantive issues) was merely the capstone.

Before the 2016 election, I admit as a white man I was willfully ignorant of my constant and unearned privilege, but after witnessing the treatment of President Obama and then Secretary Clinton from 2008 through 2016, I remain sickened by just how much further we have to go down the road to equality and even basic fairness...

still_one

(91,965 posts)
12. yup, The Arkansas Project, mellencamp, and I like you was oblivious to my unearned privlege too.
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 12:30 PM
Jan 2019

This opinion piece is not really attacking Hillary, but I just get frustrated that she seems to get used as a strawman for a lot of things.

still_one

(91,965 posts)
14. I believe her initial reason was because she felt that the republican party was moving toward
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 12:33 PM
Jan 2019

Wall Street, and leaving the regular person behind

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
9. Interesting
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 12:12 PM
Jan 2019

"Warren, on the other hand, diagnoses virtually every issue — from student debt to climate change, gun control to retirement security — with the same blunt prescription. 'The answer is corruption, pure and simple. We have a government that works for those at the top,' she says."

This is precisely why I'm not (and have not been) keen on Warren. I tend to distrust this sort of simplistic, reductive populist tactic. The silver bullet rallying cry. "Just do this (break up the banks, end corruption, or, yeah, build a wall) and the rest will fall into place; trust me [heavy on the me]."

I realize that politics (as opposed to actually governing and legislating) is an art form meant to seduce rather than solve things. But when the seduction overtakes the reality of the complexity of issues, it's an imbalance I'm not comfortable with. We have an inherent aversion to politicians who delve deeply into issues or ideas: think Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton. All were chided for being too intellectual or too wonky.

I don't want to be seduced by a mere slogan. I want to see that a candidate understands the complexities of issues—and for a presidential candidate this means an entire range of issues, from the economy and jobs to climate change and health care, foreign policy and civil rights. A simple prescription of ending corruption does not fulfill this requirement. Sure, corruption and inequality matter greatly: but what we really need is a paradigm shift in public consciousness to effect changes in these areas. That is how marriage equality was effected; and at one time, desegregation of the schools (we've backslid on that one). The people still have power, however latent, and we need candidates who can make cogent arguments that address the hows and the whys of issues, not just whip up indignity.

I don't think Elizabeth Warren isn't capable of complex thought: she's obviously an intelligent woman. I just don't care for the shtick.

ProfessorPlum

(11,252 posts)
13. she has correctly diagnosed the problem at the heart of nearly all problems in the US
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 12:32 PM
Jan 2019

corrupting money.

The fact that that message is 1) true and 2) popular and 3) will fix a vast majority of problems makes her smart for picking it up. Finally. I've been waiting for a Democratic presidential contender to make this obvious point, to run against the elephant in the room, since about 1980.

your mileage may vary, of course. To me, this "shtick" is both vital and correct - good policy and good politics.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Elizabeth Warren has some...