Getting to the Point with Senator Elizabeth Warren
October 1, 2015 3:31 AM Subscribe
Senator Elizabeth Warren addresses the Edward M. Kennedy Insitute for the United States Senate on the subject of inequality in the US. Transcript [but her delivery is so terrific, watch the video, really. -ed.] Slate reflects on the speech.
The speech actually begins around 12:08, but really, watch from the beginning, because the introduction of Warren is one of the most amazing speeches in and of itself I have ever heard.
Warren's speech is what I want to hear from a presidential candidate. *sigh*
The speech actually begins around 12:08, but really, watch from the beginning, because the introduction of Warren is one of the most amazing speeches in and of itself I have ever heard.
Warren's speech is what I want to hear from a presidential candidate. *sigh*
Coulda benna contender. ðŸ˜
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:46 AM on October 1, 2015
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:46 AM on October 1, 2015
Yup. Why, why didn't she run?
posted by Trochanter at 4:48 AM on October 1, 2015
posted by Trochanter at 4:48 AM on October 1, 2015
I can't wait to vote for her for president, but am glad she's not running this time. She's doing important work where she is.
posted by LooseFilter at 4:52 AM on October 1, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by LooseFilter at 4:52 AM on October 1, 2015 [20 favorites]
Probably for the same reason people don't volunteer to get tarred and feathered.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:53 AM on October 1, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by double block and bleed at 4:53 AM on October 1, 2015 [12 favorites]
Agree w the important work part but she'll never run now. She's older than Hillary.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:55 AM on October 1, 2015
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:55 AM on October 1, 2015
Errr 1 year younger. I meant she'll be much older than Hillary when the time comes 4-8 years from now to run. Too hard on a human body and spirit to launch a presidential run at 70+.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:57 AM on October 1, 2015
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:57 AM on October 1, 2015
Bernie Sanders seems to be doing well.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:59 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by double block and bleed at 4:59 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think it's perfectly respectable to have a life plan for yourself that does not involve being President of the United States.
While it's not a direct comparison, when John Stewart announced he was leaving The Daily Show, people jumped all over Jessica Williams telling her that she should take over as host. Regardless of whether that was a real option for the network, Jessica was up front about the fact that hosting The Daily Show was not something she actually wanted to do. After she revealed that, people on social media bombarded her, telling her that she didn't know what was good for her, that Black Womanhood needed her to want the hosting job. It was a bad scene.
Be glad Warren is a Senator, and trust that she knows what she wants.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 5:36 AM on October 1, 2015 [48 favorites]
While it's not a direct comparison, when John Stewart announced he was leaving The Daily Show, people jumped all over Jessica Williams telling her that she should take over as host. Regardless of whether that was a real option for the network, Jessica was up front about the fact that hosting The Daily Show was not something she actually wanted to do. After she revealed that, people on social media bombarded her, telling her that she didn't know what was good for her, that Black Womanhood needed her to want the hosting job. It was a bad scene.
Be glad Warren is a Senator, and trust that she knows what she wants.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 5:36 AM on October 1, 2015 [48 favorites]
I would much rather she remain my Senator, speaking largely-unvarnished truth and doing valuable work than having her spend a year pandering to voters from outside Massachusetts in the hope they will make her President.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:44 AM on October 1, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:44 AM on October 1, 2015 [11 favorites]
Warren is a capable speaker and her participation would surely have made that one Democrat debate very interesting to watch.
I have every expectation that Bernie Sanders will fill that role.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:46 AM on October 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
I have every expectation that Bernie Sanders will fill that role.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:46 AM on October 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
What Kirth Gerson said. She can easily do a couple more terms in the Senate without even having to face any more serious re-election bids (let's face it, Scott Brown was a complete fluke), and will be much more effective for those 12-18 years (plus the remainder of this term) than she could EVER be as President.
posted by briank at 5:47 AM on October 1, 2015
posted by briank at 5:47 AM on October 1, 2015
I'm still holding out (admittedly slim) hope for Biden/Warren 2016.
posted by Optamystic at 5:48 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Optamystic at 5:48 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
She'd make a great VP candidate, revving up the base and attacking the other side for being plutocrat lackeys.
posted by leotrotsky at 5:48 AM on October 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by leotrotsky at 5:48 AM on October 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
I have every expectation that Bernie Sanders will fill that role.
Sanders is good, but Warren's got a William Jennings Bryan thing going on that Sanders doesn't have. I don't agree with her politics, but I admire her chops - anyone can see here her message resonates with this left leaning crowd - and despite her deadpan delivery I think she'd create some healthy excitement on the Democrat side which the coronation of Mrs. Clinton has so far failed to deliver.
Too hard on a human body and spirit to launch a presidential run at 70+.
Sanders is 74, Biden is 73. Clinton is two years older than Warren.
But like I say, it's not the age, it's the miles.
posted by three blind mice at 6:25 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sanders is good, but Warren's got a William Jennings Bryan thing going on that Sanders doesn't have. I don't agree with her politics, but I admire her chops - anyone can see here her message resonates with this left leaning crowd - and despite her deadpan delivery I think she'd create some healthy excitement on the Democrat side which the coronation of Mrs. Clinton has so far failed to deliver.
Too hard on a human body and spirit to launch a presidential run at 70+.
Sanders is 74, Biden is 73. Clinton is two years older than Warren.
But like I say, it's not the age, it's the miles.
posted by three blind mice at 6:25 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
leotrotsky: "She'd make a great VP candidate, revving up the base and attacking the other side for being plutocrat lackeys."
Or! We could keep her in the Senate WRITING LAWS.
I like the part where she's in charge of writing laws rather than in charge of rhetorical attacks and base-revving.
At some point the pendulum is going to swing back towards Congress regaining some power at the expense of the presidency, and at some point Congress is going to start actually legislating again, and it is going to be very helpful to have extremely talented people like Warren in the legislature instead of stripping them all for the executive branch.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:33 AM on October 1, 2015 [34 favorites]
Or! We could keep her in the Senate WRITING LAWS.
I like the part where she's in charge of writing laws rather than in charge of rhetorical attacks and base-revving.
At some point the pendulum is going to swing back towards Congress regaining some power at the expense of the presidency, and at some point Congress is going to start actually legislating again, and it is going to be very helpful to have extremely talented people like Warren in the legislature instead of stripping them all for the executive branch.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:33 AM on October 1, 2015 [34 favorites]
Warren is doing so much good in the Senate (as my state's Senator) that I don't want her to run for President just yet. She has a lot of wonderful work she can do that the compromises required by the Presidency would not allow. She's an amazing successor to Kennedy, and I feel that if she stays in the Senate, she's going to be just as revered and respected by both sides of the aisle in the coming years (if she isn't already).
Don't push her into the last job she'll have too quickly, please.
posted by xingcat at 6:41 AM on October 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
Don't push her into the last job she'll have too quickly, please.
posted by xingcat at 6:41 AM on October 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
I love her in the Senate. Congress is full of so much crazy, and SO FEW WOMEN, that having an outspoken senator who's not keeping a presidential run in the back of her head and pandering to some imaginary future electorate is incredibly valuable. She's doing so much more good as a senator than she would as a presidential candidate who is probably too far left to get elected - and certainly than she would as a vice president to a more moderate Democrat.
posted by ChuraChura at 6:45 AM on October 1, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 6:45 AM on October 1, 2015 [8 favorites]
Too hard on a human body and spirit to launch a presidential run at 70+.
Reagan was 73 when he ran for his second term.
posted by maxsparber at 8:10 AM on October 1, 2015
Reagan was 73 when he ran for his second term.
posted by maxsparber at 8:10 AM on October 1, 2015
You know, I want her to stay in the Senate too. But I also want her to be president. And I want her to move to Illinois and become our governor. And mayor of Chicago. I just want to give her the keys to everything, but that's apparently not how democracy works. No, we've got to elect all these other yahoos who aren't Elizabeth Warren, because there's only one of her to go around.
(And I want her to go retire to someplace fabulous and sip margaritas on the beach without a care in the world, because heaven knows she deserves it!)
posted by gueneverey at 8:16 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
(And I want her to go retire to someplace fabulous and sip margaritas on the beach without a care in the world, because heaven knows she deserves it!)
posted by gueneverey at 8:16 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
Reagan was 73 when he ran for his second term.
notsureifserious.jpg
posted by Gerald Bostock at 8:43 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
notsureifserious.jpg
posted by Gerald Bostock at 8:43 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
Reagan was 73 when he ran for his second term.
and almost certainly had Alzheimer's symptoms. The primary qualification for president is that you are a 35 years aged sack of meat.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:46 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
and almost certainly had Alzheimer's symptoms. The primary qualification for president is that you are a 35 years aged sack of meat.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:46 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Warren has also added to her trophies as of late - the sinecure of a Brookings staffer who attacked the CFPB while not revealing he was bought and paid for.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:51 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:51 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm still holding out (admittedly slim) hope for Biden/Warren 2016.
The "new democrats" or "clinton dems," of which Biden (senator from the capital of corporate america) is a long-standing member, hate Warren and everything she stands for. Or more precisely, they regard her as a fundamentally ignorant show-boat who promotes terrible policies and is politically naive. They hate hate hate her. Biden/Warren is as inconceivable as Clinton/Bush unity ticket, not to mention Clinton/Sanders.
Also, this is the sort of feel good vacuous speech that I would expect from a presidential candidate.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:10 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
The "new democrats" or "clinton dems," of which Biden (senator from the capital of corporate america) is a long-standing member, hate Warren and everything she stands for. Or more precisely, they regard her as a fundamentally ignorant show-boat who promotes terrible policies and is politically naive. They hate hate hate her. Biden/Warren is as inconceivable as Clinton/Bush unity ticket, not to mention Clinton/Sanders.
Also, this is the sort of feel good vacuous speech that I would expect from a presidential candidate.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:10 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am looking for a house right now and the agent told me about a new form I had to sign insuring he wouldn't share my personal information thanks to the CFPB. He was complaining about it, but I wanted to say "I think what the CFPB is doing is fabulous and you should too."
posted by emjaybee at 9:24 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by emjaybee at 9:24 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
this is the sort of feel good vacuous speech that I would expect from a presidential candidate.
And yet none of the actual candidates are saying even this much.
posted by suelac at 9:25 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
And yet none of the actual candidates are saying even this much.
posted by suelac at 9:25 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
The ever-increasing clamor for Warren to run for president really illuminates the Left's obsession with winning "the presidency" instead of winning "the government." The DEMs turn out in droves for presidential races, and then expect the president to be able to work her agenda regardless of the state of congress. This is what leads to the really inaccurate expectations for Obama, or the idea that a President Bernie could get any of his agenda through.
Warren is sharp, and talented, and can build support for her ideas, and is a great speaker, and is one of the most knowledgeable people w/r/t econ legislation and regulation in the world. She should be dealing with legal and procedural minutiae, because she knows what to do with it, and how to use the little details to the advantage of her cause. Putting her in the presidency would force her to deal with thousands of issues from a macro level, and to delegate all of the medium and small-scope work.
I guess I'm saying that if this president-warren talk doesn't stop soon, I'ma end up going viral with some deranged "Leave Warren Alone" video or something.
If you want Warren to be more powerful, don't try and make her president. Try and elect some allies to work with her in the Senate!!
posted by DGStieber at 9:50 AM on October 1, 2015 [32 favorites]
Warren is sharp, and talented, and can build support for her ideas, and is a great speaker, and is one of the most knowledgeable people w/r/t econ legislation and regulation in the world. She should be dealing with legal and procedural minutiae, because she knows what to do with it, and how to use the little details to the advantage of her cause. Putting her in the presidency would force her to deal with thousands of issues from a macro level, and to delegate all of the medium and small-scope work.
I guess I'm saying that if this president-warren talk doesn't stop soon, I'ma end up going viral with some deranged "Leave Warren Alone" video or something.
If you want Warren to be more powerful, don't try and make her president. Try and elect some allies to work with her in the Senate!!
posted by DGStieber at 9:50 AM on October 1, 2015 [32 favorites]
At some point the pendulum is going to swing back towards Congress regaining some power at the expense of the presidency, and at some point Congress is going to start actually legislating again
I don't see that happening anytime soon. The expanding executive is (in part) a function of profoundly broken legislative branch. So long as Republicans stay in safely gerrymandered districts with threats only from the right, there is no incentive in compromise.
If you want legislation to actually become law, you need to retake the House. To have any prayer of that, you'll need to look past 2020 until after the Census and subsequent redistricting (and taking into account the control of state legislatures who help draw those lines, where Republicans are just crushing the Democrats). Republicans have gained over 900 state legislative seats since Obama became president.
Under the best of circumstances, it will be quite a while before anything substantive from Sen. Warren becomes the law of the land, and there are no guarantees there.
At least the VP job gives her a bigger bully pulpit.
posted by leotrotsky at 9:56 AM on October 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
I don't see that happening anytime soon. The expanding executive is (in part) a function of profoundly broken legislative branch. So long as Republicans stay in safely gerrymandered districts with threats only from the right, there is no incentive in compromise.
If you want legislation to actually become law, you need to retake the House. To have any prayer of that, you'll need to look past 2020 until after the Census and subsequent redistricting (and taking into account the control of state legislatures who help draw those lines, where Republicans are just crushing the Democrats). Republicans have gained over 900 state legislative seats since Obama became president.
Under the best of circumstances, it will be quite a while before anything substantive from Sen. Warren becomes the law of the land, and there are no guarantees there.
At least the VP job gives her a bigger bully pulpit.
posted by leotrotsky at 9:56 AM on October 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
I don't see that happening anytime soon. . . . If you want legislation to actually become law, you need to retake the House.
The only effective political response to these realizations is to do more, sooner, and persuade more like-thinking people to do the same.
At least the VP job gives her a bigger bully pulpit.
For four or eight years. Or she could stay in the Senate, with ever-increasing influence for another twenty, or more.
If you want Warren to be more powerful, don't try and make her president. Try and elect some allies to work with her in the Senate
"Majority Leader Elizabeth Warren" sounds pretty good to me.
posted by Herodios at 10:48 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
The only effective political response to these realizations is to do more, sooner, and persuade more like-thinking people to do the same.
At least the VP job gives her a bigger bully pulpit.
For four or eight years. Or she could stay in the Senate, with ever-increasing influence for another twenty, or more.
If you want Warren to be more powerful, don't try and make her president. Try and elect some allies to work with her in the Senate
"Majority Leader Elizabeth Warren" sounds pretty good to me.
posted by Herodios at 10:48 AM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
She can easily do a couple more terms in the Senate without even having to face any more serious re-election bids (let's face it, Scott Brown was a complete fluke)
I agree that Warren could easily be a lifer, but I don't think Scott Brown was a fluke so much as the beneficiary of a protest vote against the Dems putting up Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's seat. Cold and calculating is a quality more appreciated in an Attorney General than in the successor to the Lion of the Senate. Just to take my own home county of Hampden, what seemed like a strong support base for Brown evaporated to the tune of a 10-point swing as soon as there was a Democrat worth voting for. Scott Brown was Massachusetts saying "We'll vote for almost any Democrat, just don't jerk us around." Warren is the kind of senator we were hoping for in the first place; she'll have that job as long as she wants it, because we do love our liberal lectures to the nation.
posted by Errant at 10:48 AM on October 1, 2015
I agree that Warren could easily be a lifer, but I don't think Scott Brown was a fluke so much as the beneficiary of a protest vote against the Dems putting up Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's seat. Cold and calculating is a quality more appreciated in an Attorney General than in the successor to the Lion of the Senate. Just to take my own home county of Hampden, what seemed like a strong support base for Brown evaporated to the tune of a 10-point swing as soon as there was a Democrat worth voting for. Scott Brown was Massachusetts saying "We'll vote for almost any Democrat, just don't jerk us around." Warren is the kind of senator we were hoping for in the first place; she'll have that job as long as she wants it, because we do love our liberal lectures to the nation.
posted by Errant at 10:48 AM on October 1, 2015
Ted Kennedy's seat.
By now I'd be surprised if anyone outside of MA thinks in these terms.
MAfites, is it still "Ted Kennedy's seat" at home?
posted by Herodios at 10:52 AM on October 1, 2015
By now I'd be surprised if anyone outside of MA thinks in these terms.
MAfites, is it still "Ted Kennedy's seat" at home?
posted by Herodios at 10:52 AM on October 1, 2015
It is Elizabeth Warren's seat, but folks still talk about her in terms of 'Glad she is in Ted Kennedy's seat.'
With that said, keep in mind MA voters were dumb enough to put Charlie Baker in the Governor's Office this last election cycle. If Warren should be tapped, he would appoint a replacement (between resignation and confirmation of a special election winner). More importantly, the whole Brown/Warren campaign pretty much put it out there that we sit on a cusp between liberal and non-crazy-but-big-business-oriented republican. Seriously, it is a very small differential as to who holds the power.
I don't understand how we can do this in MA. We can have some outstanding National representatives, but we can continually fuck up the leader of our state house in the name of the efficiency economy.
posted by Nanukthedog at 11:16 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
With that said, keep in mind MA voters were dumb enough to put Charlie Baker in the Governor's Office this last election cycle. If Warren should be tapped, he would appoint a replacement (between resignation and confirmation of a special election winner). More importantly, the whole Brown/Warren campaign pretty much put it out there that we sit on a cusp between liberal and non-crazy-but-big-business-oriented republican. Seriously, it is a very small differential as to who holds the power.
I don't understand how we can do this in MA. We can have some outstanding National representatives, but we can continually fuck up the leader of our state house in the name of the efficiency economy.
posted by Nanukthedog at 11:16 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Warren has also added to her trophies as of late - the sinecure of a Brookings staffer who attacked the CFPB while not revealing he was bought and paid for.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:51 AM on October 1 [2 favorites +] [!]
What's most interesting about this is that attacking an employee of the Brookings Institution for bias toward funders plausibly could lead to a firing. For Heritage, Cato, and that bunch, the response would basically be, "Yeah? So what is your point?"
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:18 AM on October 1, 2015
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:51 AM on October 1 [2 favorites +] [!]
What's most interesting about this is that attacking an employee of the Brookings Institution for bias toward funders plausibly could lead to a firing. For Heritage, Cato, and that bunch, the response would basically be, "Yeah? So what is your point?"
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:18 AM on October 1, 2015
They hate hate hate her. Biden/Warren is as inconceivable as Clinton/Bush unity ticket, not to mention Clinton/Sanders.
Do you have any links to this idea?
posted by tunewell at 11:24 AM on October 1, 2015
Do you have any links to this idea?
posted by tunewell at 11:24 AM on October 1, 2015
MAfites, is it still "Ted Kennedy's seat" at home?
Well, it was entirely his at the time of that special election, and the speech given here is at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, where she's introduced by his widow, so I'd argue he still looms pretty large. He held that seat for almost 50 years and won his final election 69-31, winning every county in the state, while Warren is "only" halfway through her first term. It takes a little time for that legacy to fade.
With that said, keep in mind MA voters were dumb enough to put Charlie Baker in the Governor's Office this last election cycle.
Is that totally surprising though? There's a pretty long history of MA electing moderate/moderate-left Republicans to the executive: just in my lifetime, Ed King (who was basically a Republican and actually one after he left office), Bill Weld/Paul Cellucci/Jane Swift, and our old buddy Mitt Romney who was a lot more moderate-sounding then. Plus, Baker ran against the aforementioned Coakley, who still had to live down dropping an election against useful idiot Scott Brown. I'm not saying I'm in love with the idea or anything, but it doesn't seem shocking. MA tends to elect liberal legislators to come up with progressive social programs and conservative governors to figure out how to pay for them. It's not really that small a differential of power: the legislature is 80% Democrat, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by about 3.5:1, and while there are more unaffiliated voters than either, it's a firmly blue state, even if it's sometimes a lighter blue than pure numbers suggest.
posted by Errant at 11:49 AM on October 1, 2015
Well, it was entirely his at the time of that special election, and the speech given here is at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, where she's introduced by his widow, so I'd argue he still looms pretty large. He held that seat for almost 50 years and won his final election 69-31, winning every county in the state, while Warren is "only" halfway through her first term. It takes a little time for that legacy to fade.
With that said, keep in mind MA voters were dumb enough to put Charlie Baker in the Governor's Office this last election cycle.
Is that totally surprising though? There's a pretty long history of MA electing moderate/moderate-left Republicans to the executive: just in my lifetime, Ed King (who was basically a Republican and actually one after he left office), Bill Weld/Paul Cellucci/Jane Swift, and our old buddy Mitt Romney who was a lot more moderate-sounding then. Plus, Baker ran against the aforementioned Coakley, who still had to live down dropping an election against useful idiot Scott Brown. I'm not saying I'm in love with the idea or anything, but it doesn't seem shocking. MA tends to elect liberal legislators to come up with progressive social programs and conservative governors to figure out how to pay for them. It's not really that small a differential of power: the legislature is 80% Democrat, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by about 3.5:1, and while there are more unaffiliated voters than either, it's a firmly blue state, even if it's sometimes a lighter blue than pure numbers suggest.
posted by Errant at 11:49 AM on October 1, 2015
With that said, keep in mind MA voters were dumb enough to put Charlie Baker in the Governor's Office this last election cycle. If Warren should be tapped, he would appoint a replacement (between resignation and confirmation of a special election winner). More importantly, the whole Brown/Warren campaign pretty much put it out there that we sit on a cusp between liberal and non-crazy-but-big-business-oriented republican. Seriously, it is a very small differential as to who holds the power.
That's a fair point.
It's not really that small a differential of power:
I think Nanukthedog was referring to a differential at the national, not state level
posted by leotrotsky at 12:17 PM on October 1, 2015
That's a fair point.
It's not really that small a differential of power:
I think Nanukthedog was referring to a differential at the national, not state level
posted by leotrotsky at 12:17 PM on October 1, 2015
I suppose I read that "we" differently, in which case I'd take issue with the idea that we sit on a cusp between liberal and "non-crazy" Republicans at the national level. Massachusetts' entrenched liberalism forces its conservative element into some passing acquaintance with reality. I don't think this is more broadly the case.
posted by Errant at 12:28 PM on October 1, 2015
posted by Errant at 12:28 PM on October 1, 2015
Let's have the Warren Court 2.0! She's at least as qualified as Warren 1.0 and arguably more qualified.
posted by janey47 at 2:11 PM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by janey47 at 2:11 PM on October 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
fwiw...
Elizabeth Warren should (still) run for president: "it's always been Warren — not Biden — who seemed like the person who could actually beat Clinton in a primary... And it's Warren — not Sanders — whom the left wing of the party wanted to recruit as its champion."
posted by kliuless at 3:45 PM on October 1, 2015
Elizabeth Warren should (still) run for president: "it's always been Warren — not Biden — who seemed like the person who could actually beat Clinton in a primary... And it's Warren — not Sanders — whom the left wing of the party wanted to recruit as its champion."
posted by kliuless at 3:45 PM on October 1, 2015
With that said, keep in mind MA voters were dumb enough to put Charlie Baker in the Governor's Office this last election cycle.
To know the reason for that, see Errant's comment re: Martha Coakley. Because guess who the Dems put up to oppose Baker for Governor?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:11 PM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
To know the reason for that, see Errant's comment re: Martha Coakley. Because guess who the Dems put up to oppose Baker for Governor?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:11 PM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
What was powerful was her talking about things that are received wisdom among the progressive left (esp the connecting of economic and social disenfranchisement, for example it's the first time that a word like red lining i think has entered into that context.) into a set of discourses that can be read by the mainstream governmental spaces.
also, her commitment to things like commitee work, and her ability to translate adroitly.
posted by PinkMoose at 7:36 PM on October 1, 2015
also, her commitment to things like commitee work, and her ability to translate adroitly.
posted by PinkMoose at 7:36 PM on October 1, 2015
« Older Stealing All My Dreams | "The sad state of web app deployment" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by hippybear at 3:49 AM on October 1, 2015 [24 favorites]