Does Clinton Really Have People Around Her Who Think Elizabeth Warren Is a Man? Yikes.
Some people around Clinton assume that any skepticism about her candidacy has to do with latent sexism, but I’m pretty sure that’s not my issue, either. Last week, my 6-year-old daughter informed me that she couldn’t be president because she’s a girl. So believe me, if Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office on the third Friday of 2017, we’ll be watching together.
— My problem with the Clinton Death Star, Matt Bai, Yahoo News, Feb. 5
We’re in trouble, Dems. Big trouble. We’re about to nominate as our presidential candidate someone who, if Bai’s reporting is accurate, has some people around her who think that the Draft Elizabeth Warren movement isn’t about the economic populist issues and policies that Warren stands for, but instead that Elizabeth Warren is a man.
Advice to Clinton: Fire these people. Immediately.
Well, besides the money issue(which is a huge issue) we progressives have to take a serious look at the US and realize that the US as a whole is too conservative to elect Elizabeth Warren.
Upsets me. But ignoring where we live is not a good way to live.
EMichael, Not that you’re totally wrong, but you’re only right if we continue to get less than 40% turn out at the polling places. Unfortunately it’s the die hard reactionaries that make sure to vote, even if they continuously vote against their own best social and economic interests. Democracy has its limitations. Even the fools, bigots and lunatic fringe get an equal say at the ballot box.
Beverly I am a big admirer but your claim (slamming the Hillary team) only makes sense given the following assumptions:
1) Elizabeth Warren does not speak for Elizabeth Warren, instead ‘Draft Elizabeth Warren’ ‘ REALLY speaks for her.
2) The Clinton team by pretending that they actually listen to Warren while not actually listening to her REAL spokespeople are making some outlandish claim that Warren is NOT a woman. (Which given the claims directed against Hillary over the years would be truly despicable)
On the other hand if we simply make the perhaps naive assumption that the Clinton team actually respects Warren enough to take her at her (repeatedly) asserted word and are simply measuring the REST of the potential field then the argument that remaining resistance to the Clinton Juggernaut CANNOT be rooted in “latent sexism” falls apart.
Because at this point two of the three fronted possible challengers to Clinton, which is to say Biden and O’Malley, seem to mostly be just keeping their powder dry in case Hillary inexplicably decides not to go, neither to me seeming to actually be ramping up a challenge. And the other serious name floated, that of my Kinsman (?) Jim Webb pretty much planting his appeal in the field of aggrieved white male Scotch-Irish soldier types and as such the anti-Hillary kind of validates their claim of “latent sexism”. What else is Webb’s appeal?
Given that the rest of the Dem field are jokes (Cuomo? come on!) it gets pretty hard to characterize the “Anybody But Hillary” crowd at this point as anything but not-so-latent sexism.
Now of course Bernie Sanders is a possible counter-example. But while I admire what he is doing and has done the idea that someone who is not even a member of the Democratic Party could actually win the nomination is nutty. Ask Henry Wallace how that worked out for him in 1948.
Of course you are free to diagree with my political calculus here. But jumping from that to some frankly bizaare claims that Clinton’s team is declaring Elizabeth Warren to be a non-woman seems to me off base.
At least hold out the possibility that Warren means what she says and maybe the lesser possibility that Clinton actually believes her. Is that too much to ask?
Jack,
I am not convinced at all that merely increasing the amount of the public that vote would change the results because the percentages would stay the same. Now, if you can figure out how to get more progressives to vote while making sure that the “die hard reactionaries” do not vote, then you have a point.
Course, that would be voter suppression and I doubt many progressives are willing to follow the GOP down that road. Then again, our 18th century style of democracy really does not pay a whole lot of attention to the idea that majority rules.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-rauner-quinn-illinois-budget-emanuel-perspec-0206-jm-20150205-story.html
From: Non-voters getting what they deserve: Gov. Rauner
By John McCarron
“In the South Side’s 17th Ward, for instance, where Father Pfleger’s St. Sabina Parish truly does God’s work, of 29,530 registered voters a total of 13,145 showed up to vote for governor. Fully 96 percent of them voted for Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, sure, but two years ago President Barack Obama pulled 21,164 votes from that same ward.
“Up and down the tally sheet, ward by ward, it’s pretty much the same story, with Hispanic wards showing the lowest turnouts of all. Good luck, then, to Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia in his bid to unseat Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel this month. Turns out only 5,776 of his neighbors — just 1 in 10 residents of the 22nd — bestirred themselves to vote in the governor’s race. Two years ago Obama got more than 9,000 votes from that same Southwest Side ward, where Little Village is located.”
Having read Matt Bai’s piece all I can say (all I ever say) is that when the country is thoroughly re-unionized it wont matter that much who gets elected because with the us (we) having the same financing and lobbying as the 1% and 99% of the vote our reps (they) will do whatever it is we want.
Here’s how quickly that can happen:
No one would doubt the criminality of a mob union boss and/or an employer threatening to fire workers for speaking out against a mobbed-up sweetheart contract – in order to obtain for themselves the pay and benefit moneys that might otherwise have gone to employees through fair bargaining practices. A for certain RICO or Hobbs Act target.
Why shouldn’t the exact same extortionate activity be viewed in the exact same extortionate light when union busting “consultants” and ownership threaten to strip away workers’ economic livelihoods should they dare to participate in a federally approved path to establish federally approved union bargaining rights?
US Attorneys — Criminal Resource Manual 2403
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02403.htm
President?!? Hell, there are still people who think women should not be able to vote!
Aaaargh. I guess I just don’t do this kind of thing very well, like Alexandra Petri and Gail Collins do. My point was not to lament Warren’s decision not to run, nor to suggest that the Clinton people that Bai was referring to actually believe that Warren is male (thus explaining why they think that people who want Warren to challenge Clinton for the nomination do so because they are sexist). It was instead to suggest—seriously—that if Clinton does have people close to her who are so clueless that they believe that progressives who want a longtime progressive to challenge Clinton really are just sexist, her campaign is already in trouble.
Clinton’s base is a combination of hangers-on from Bill Clinton’s campaigns and presidency and upscale Boomer women who think it’s still the ‘70s-‘90s era, when once the Vietnam War ended, the end-all-and-be-all of progressive politics was that era’s version of feminism.
Since I wrote my Feb. 4 post criticizing her for apparently settling upon a campaign theme based on her status as a grandmother, and since Bai posted his post on Feb. 5 (I didn’t read it until yesterday, but it was posted last Thursday), there have been announcements of big-name additions to her campaign (John Podesta, Jennifer Palmieri, Mandy Grunwald) and several of analysis articles by major political writers (in the NYT, the Washington Post, Politico) in which Clinton’s spokesperson says that she is communicating with several economists and other experts to devise what will be a set of significant economics proposals. This seems to be in response to several recent articles along the lines of mine (which Clinton didn’t read; AB most likely is not on her reading list) and Bai’s (which Clinton likely did read; his posts likely ARE on her reading list).
In my opinion—and I plan to post on this, although she won’t see the post—absolutely the most important thing she can do is to learn, really LEARN, 20th Century economic history, especially postwar U.S. economic history. And then be ready to explain it to the public, in several clear, connecting sentences, the next time Jeb Bush or someone else suggests that a proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to fund the types of things that taxes used to fund in the postwar era (e.g., infrastructure, public universities, low student-loan rates) and also in the New Deal era (e.g., the Tennessee Valley Authority’s electrification of the South and Appalachian states) is the Politics of Envy. (Yeah, those Commies Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon!)
An article I read over the weekend said that Larry Summers, one of the economists who has her ear (surprise!) told the reporter that the trick is to address the issue of spiraling inequality without looking like it’s a politics of envy. I mean, like … wow. That’s a tough trick! Eisenhower must have been a political Houdini!
EMichael, I have no idea why you think that Warren’s issues and policies are too liberal for a majority of voters. They’re not. Reining in the financial industry? Protecting consumers from the financial industry? Low rates on student loans? The claim that the political system is owned and controlled by the very wealthy and that they’ve rigged the economic system in their favor?
These don’t resonate with a majority of the public?
Beverly,
Don’t forget, 50% of employees want to be unionized — last count — could be higher than ever now. They understand that that is the only way to political as well as economic equalization. The only way they are going to get any of those other good policies.
Bev,
Don’t confuse the issue with facts, they are not that important to at least half of the country.
I am reminded of the past race in Kentucky. A state where Obamacare was widely hated, yet Kynect was widely loved. The fact that they are the same did not seem to bother the electorate at all. So It goes with Warren. We’ve watched decade after decade go by with people voting against their own self interests. Why would anyone think that will stop?
Combine that with the fact that Warren is so up front with policies and thoughts that would control the financial industry that her campaign would receive absolutely no cash from that industry at all.
Not exactly a successful campaign strategy.
The saddest part about this post is what it says about the US political system. Wish I did not think it was the truth.
Facts may well not be important to at least half the country, EMichael, but until we have progressive politicians who actually apprise the country of the facts, we really can’t be sure of that. Huge swaths of the electorate thinks federal budget deficits continue to increase; they have no idea that annual deficits have decreased dramatically in the last few years—much less what the effects of that are on the economy. Obama made a single-sentence reference to it in his State of the Union address, which had fairly low ratings, and of course that one sentence was not given much play in the media the next day. Most of the public also is unaware of the dramatic reduction in state and local budgets, and of their effect—e.g., that most state universities that used to be funded mostly by tax revenue no longer are.
Of course, had Obama used statistics, and charts to demonstrate the statistics, THAT would have gotten some attention. But statistics aren’t his thing, nor is any attempt to explain anything much or correct misconceptions, however significant. Instead, he just brushes past or completely ignores widespread misconceptions, however critical, and just talks about his proposals—as if there’s no connection between the likely appeal of his proposals and the public’s beliefs about government fiscal matters, INCLUDING tax rates and correlative effects in the recent and postwar decades.
That’s been what we’ve been dealing with for six years now.
Elizabeth Warren actually speaks about facts. That’s what her strength is. There’s a huge difference between the likelihood of success for a politician using facts and clear, coherent explanations, and someone like Obama who doesn’t. It would take Warren about two weeks as a candidate to disabuse the public of the false facts that have played so huge a part in politics is recent years, and to educate the public about basic Keynesian economics.
She’s not the only progressive politician who can do this, but she is right now the only one who gains media attention.
Bev,
I agree with everything you say.
Does not matter in terms of Warren’s electability on the national level.
We are a stupid country easily misled by bright objects( like Cavuto marks) hampered by an undemocratic democracy.
Clinton needs to understand that those insiders who think it’s still 1992 and what worked then will work now are not the people who will get her elected. The people who will get her elected are (1) dying to fall in love with Hillary again, and (2) already love Elizabeth Warren.
The DC-based Democrats — the Obama people, the Clinton people, the DNC, the DSCC, and the DCCC people — simply do not understand that they need hundreds of thousands of energized workers hitting the phone lines and pounding on doors. For the most part the Democratic base out here in the battleground hinterlands consists of progressives who care deeply. They were the people who got Obama elected. Unfortunately, he and his people did not care about them once he got elected.
Milquetoast Democrats always looking for the center point between Republicans and Democrats — no matter how far the Republicans have pulled that mid-point to the right — do not have the energy and passion to do the grunt work. Ugh!
If Hillary wants hundreds of thousands of energized workers, she will have to find her inner progressive. If she can finesse her Wall Street ties and foreign policy history, that’s all to the good, but when it comes to the economy, she needs to listen to Warren. As you say, her positions are simple and very popular. As to how to talk to the American people and treat them with the respect FDR did, HRC needs to assume they can follow a good line of reasoning. She should carefully read and sleep on FDR’s fireside chats, where he explained why they were doing the things they were doing — like trying to pump demand for the goods and services of hurting businesses — and even acknowledged sometimes that he was not certain they would work the way he thought they would work. No Democrat talks that way now, and the results of that failure to make a case for anything — relying only on the talismanic effect of reciting standard Democratic mantras — are there for everyone to see.
Finessing her Wall Street ties: trying to pretend she doesn’t have them and channeling Warren on this would be a mistake. Her son-in-law is there now, and her daughter was. That’s just for starters. But she can be for a strong financial sector (and its millions of employees) but also for sound regulation to enforce honesty. That will need to be the distinguishing point. It will also allow her the distance herself from the Obama-Holder decisions not to make even the dishonest people who brought us the financial collapse of 2008 suffer consequences they should have suffered.
“….but until we have progressive politicians who actually apprise the country of the facts, we really can’t be sure of that.” Beverly
When in history was it the politicians who educated the people? That’s the role of the “fourth estate,” the news media. Over the past few decades the laws and rules governing who owns what in broadcast media has changed dramatically. The print media has shrunken dramatically and the ownership even more so. The rules governing connections between the print and broadcast media have also been eviscerated. I refer you back to my favorite progressive politician.
“When, then, will the people be educated? When they have enough bread to eat, and when the rich and the government cease bribing treacherous pens and tongues to deceive them; when their interests are identified with those of the people. When will this be? Never.” Max. Robespierre
“When in history was it the politicians who educated the people?”
Go read FDR’s fireside chats. If you can’t get the press to do it, and you can’t, you must be determined to do it yourselves. The Republicans starting with Goldwater and Reagan have done it. They have just done it with falsehoods and relentless repetition of those falsehoods — to the point where even the so-called centrist Democrats adopt those falsehoods in essence but claim to be more moderate about them. Can you imagine a more sure-fire loser of a stance than that?
But if you just give up and say the American people are too stupid to understand the truth, you don’t deserve to have anyone listen to you.
One day people will figure out that it is 2015 and that comparisons between FDR’s time and today is beyond silly.
Not quite as silly as saying in one paragraph that the GOP has “educated” people with “falsehoods and relentless repetition of those falsehoods ” while saying in the next paragraph that no one who thinks the ” American people are too stupid to understand the truth” should be listened to.
But really silly.
People learn falsehoods as well as truths. And, unfortunately, this is not silly.
EM —
What do they say, people who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it? Maybe you can see lessons in certain parts of history, maybe you can’t. I’m betting you have never read any of FDR’s fireside chats, and therefore have no idea what I’m talking about. I guess you would prefer Democrats just keep on taking their lumps and sit around passively doing nothing, rather than trying to figure out how they could do it better. Should we just decide that 34% turnouts for mid-terms is in the stars?
No, I have read many of the Fireside Chats. On the other hand, that has nothing to do with anything.
Different time. Different country. Different communications.
There used to be a bully pulpit. It has not existed for a long time. More Americans listened to his chats than watch the SOTU address. More people watch Fox News tell people what was said in the SOTU than watch the SOTU.