This clip from YouTube was uploaded yesterday. Watch it and think about what she could do for economic fairness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqCFxg2ez44#t=134
has repeatedly said he isn’t running until he decided to run.
Ms. Warren also wasn’t running for the Senate until she was persuaded that the nation needed her to do so.
Jasiusays
Remember that while she was still a federal employee she could not say anything about running. Once she left the job, she started her listening tour around the state, making it clear that she was considering it.
No such restrictions on her now. As with The Governor, I believe her when she says no.
ryepower12says
most people who say they aren’t running for President, but do are at least a little more cagey or playful about it.
They are rarely, if ever, so emphatic about it. Elizabeth Warren has gone out of her way to be as clear as she’s been on the matter.
kirthsays
I’m afraid the Big Money would somehow force her to compromise her principles to the point that she’d be another Barack Obama, or failing that, would manufacture a massive, unrelenting Swift Boat campaign to defeat her. I know they tried when she ran for the Senate, but I think they were as surprised as everyone at her popularity. They won’t be surprised again.
She may be more effective as an unbought Senator than she would be as a compromised President.
My dream 2016 race is Warren vs Paul. I’d buy those debates on pay-per-view.
ryepower12says
Elizabeth Warren to run for President. I’m a huge fan of Hillary, but Elizabeth Warren would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and worth upsetting the status quo on.
So I get it — I really do.
But we have to face the reality that Elizabeth Warren has said, in no uncertain terms, that she isn’t running for President. I don’t know how much more emphatic she can be about it.
It can’t be some secret ploy or fake-out, either, because running for President is serious business and requires a serious time commitment. She would need to be taking all the actions of a Presidential candidate today to be in a position to beat Hillary years from now — and much as she’s broadened her national profile over the past year, she’s not raising that kind of money or building that kind of campaign infrastructure.
She’s an incredible bright person and knows all this — she’s not going to run a campaign she couldn’t have a chance in winning, which means she’s not going to get into this race late.
I hope she’ll consider running for President in 2020, if for some reason Hillary (or any other Democrat nominated) loses. I think that’s something that may be more likely to happen.
But until then, let’s just deal in reality and focus on people who may actually run for President in 2016 — because it’s not going to be Elizabeth Warren, much as so many of us wish she would.
Hillary Clinton will run, and will be our next president. There will be a few moments of drama and tension in the process — remember Obama losing the debate? — but that’s how this will play out.
HOWEVER: this isn’t just a fun game. Lots of lives and livelihoods are at stake here — especially as the Republican nominee is quite likely to be dangerously crazy and radical. Therefore, it behooves everyone to think through low-probability scenarios.
That’s all the Warren campaign is. Stuff happens: Winston Churchill nearly got hit by a Manhattan taxicab in 1934. If something very unlikely happens and Hillary decides she doesn’t want to run after all, we want to have a list of phone numbers. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O’Malley, John Kerry, and add your name here.
It’s not going to happen. It’s not worth handicapping or studying; even if it did happen (which it won’t), what happens next would depend on exactly why it wasn’t going to be Hillary and when everything changed.
That said: Warren did write a campaign book. It seems early and overkill for her senate seat, but it’s not unreasonable: we almost lost a generation of health care because we took that seat for granted in 2010. It’s possible the book was written for the eventuality that Hilllary might have decided in 2013 to retire from public life. It’s possible that, like John Kerry, Warren has another job that she’d like to fill someday, a job even more important than her current job. It’s not obvious what that would be. Might she hope to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Might she hope to succeed Janet Yellen?
Or does she plan to champion some piece of major legislation in the Clinton administration — something so big that it requires a senator of presidential stature?
But this sort of speculation about a primary contest is destructive; it gets people worked up over something that ain’t going to happen.
SomervilleTomsays
Hillary Clinton may well get the nomination, and I will almost surely vote for her in preference to whatever clown the GOP chooses.
Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton shows little indication of taking us in the direction we need to go. Most importantly, I see no indication that she will do anything at all about our obscene and increasing wealth and income concentration — if anything, she will take us in the opposite direction.
I get that Elizabeth Warren is not running. What I don’t yet get is what happens to all of us if we perpetuate the self-destructive spiral into economic disaster that both parties (dominated by the 1%) demand in exchange for their support.
a) Assuming Hillary Clinton runs, make sure she wins.
b) Get more Progressives into the House and Senate.
c) Get mote Progressives and more Democrats into state legislatures, in time to control redistricting after the 2020 census.
d) Reward bold Progressives in Congress, and punish the timid and craven when that can be done without harm.
e) Always keep in mind that the President is chiefly vital as a firebreak; she has limited (but powerful) initiative but she can also stymie the dangerously crazy elements of the House Republicans.
f) Remember always that, the last time we argued that a Clintonite was “almost as bad” as a Republican, our reward was eight years of Bush 43 and an unnecessary war.
The next president may well inherit a legislative climate of complete deadlock, following on two years of incessant vetoes and, quite possibly, a Supreme Court with multiple vacancies for which multiple nominees have been filibustered. Our choice is not whether Clinton or Warren would be better in that situation: our choice is whether Clinton or Rand Paul will be better.
jconwaysays
Can’t we cross apply all of that to what centrists told liberals we needed to do in the 1990s? Or under Obama the past six years?
Remember always that, the last time we argued that a Clintonite was “almost as bad” as a Republican, our reward was eight years of Bush 43 and an unnecessary war.
An unncessary war endorsed by the very person you are asking us to vote for, still waiting for that apology by the way, guess it was a hard choice she doesn’t want to talk about.
d) Reward bold Progressives in Congress, and punish the timid and craven when that can be done without harm.
A lot harder to be a bold progressive in Congress when your leaders who are supposed to be on your side, stymie your attempts to actually pass progressive legislation. Would Hillary need to be punished in 2020 if she ended up governing in the same timid and craven mold as her husband and predecessor? Or would we have to ‘wait for next time’ yet again?
Our choice is not whether Clinton or Warren would be better in that situation: our choice is whether Clinton or Rand Paul will be better.
Well no it’s not. Our choice could include a plethora of candidates since the first primary is nearly two years away, and such a challenger, even if he or she were to lose, would certainly force Hillary to deal with their positions and take on the issues, no?
As to the second question, there are frankly important questions of war or peace and civil liberties or government survelliance where Rand is in the right and Hillary is in the wrong. I would never vote for Rand Paul, but I also am incredibly uncomfortable swallowing the liberal hawk view of the world that Hillary has. One shouldn’t have to choose between support for Social Security and a sensible foreign policy that doesn’t rely on pre-emptive war, drones, or domestic wiretaps. That choice sir, is a false one, since there is still time for a progressive challenger to emerge. The GOP boogeyman act is wearing thin, particularly when we remember how much Obama failed to accomplish when he actually had Congressional control. And how many Clinton veterans were behind that very failure.
Christophersays
Sure, she voted for what she thought was an authorization to use force given what was known at the time. I wasn’t a big fan, but I remember at the time fully understanding why it was granted. Bush was the Commander in Chief; Bush overplayed his authorization; Bush insisted on finding an excuse to go after Iraq; Bush mismanaged it on so many levels. All HRC did was cast a vote that even if it had gone the other way I suspect Bush would have figured out a way to do a lot of what he did anyway. If we got progressive legislation through Congress do you honestly think HRC would veto it?
JimCsays
Not her, not John Kerry … not even Barack Obama, who admitted at one point that he probably would have voted for the war.
She doesn’t get all the blame, but she gets some. Let’s not forget that she ran a pretty hawkish campaign in 2008.
Christophersays
It makes no sense for it to be part of the 2016 dialogue except maybe as a backdrop to asking the question what is your criteria for sending troops into harm’s way. I was ready to move on in 2008; I definitely will be in 2016.
JimCsays
WAR. Not insurance industry regulations or whatever. FREAKING WAR — death, destruction, mayhem.
Sorry but you’re not allowed to move on, and neither are our feckless leaders.
They knew — they ALL knew — that the war was a crock, and they voted for it anyway. They authorized murder to keep their jobs. If that’s not unforgivable, I don’t know what is.
I mean, we can make “call of history” arguments, America’s role in the world, blah blah blah. We can accept that they did their best under the circumstances. (Well, I can’t, but that’s one argument.) But they screwed up, royally, and people (a lot of people) died as a result.
jconwaysays
With all due respect, this is a profoundly ignorant statement.
Read this article, and tell me Hillary Clinton isn’t as responsible as George W Bush for this continuing humanitarian and political disaster. The rise of Iran, the strength of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the instability in Syria, not to mention the all out regionalized Sunnia-Shia conflict-can be directly laid at the footstep of George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton. According to her recent slow selling book, if she and David Petraues had their way, our troops would still be there in the middle of the slaughter if she had her way. Alongside ground forces in Libya, massive air strikes against Syria (which these days, would only serve to assist ISIS in taking over THAT country).
Hers is a record of good intentioned bellicosity in the face of overwhelming evidence and long term strategic thinking that would demand alternatives to force. This entire mess will take decades and multiple administrations to clean up, it may in fact keep us from the Pacific Pivot and stopping the rise of China. It may in fact, prevent us from reversing the American decline.
It ain’t ancient history if people are still dying from the mistake.
SomervilleTomsays
Sorry, but we committed grave moral wrongs in that illegal and unnecessary war. Not just in the runup to it, but in its prosecution and its aftermath.
I don’t remember Ms. Clinton or Mr. Kerry calling for investigation and prosecution of the war criminals.
When folks talk of “moving on”, I’m reminded of the feverish intensity with which the GOP wanted us to “move on” without investigating or prosecuting the many crimes of Richard Nixon and his henchmen. We are STILL paying the price for that, each time another Democrat is relentlessly hounded and the GOP partisans cite the “partisan attacks” on Richard Nixon as precedent. The same is true for the Iran-Contra scandal.
The first step in “moving on”, like “forgiveness”, is repentance. The ONLY way to accomplish repentance, on a national scale, is to investigate and PROVE (and therefore admit) the moral wrongs and war crimes that were committed.
Neither Germany nor Japan were allowed to “move on” after their war crimes of WWII, and we spiral ever downward into moral apathy, cynicism, or worse when we attempt skip the necessary first step.
Sorry, but I think “moving on” is absolutely the wrong thing to do about the Iraq War.
Christophersays
Maybe I wasn’t as artful as I could have been, but I’m not sure how else to put it. At the end of the day PRESIDENTS are responsible for our war footing and conduct. Yes, I know Congress technically declares war and has some authorization roles due to the War Powers Act. I also know that proving hypotheticals is pretty much impossible, but I don’t see a President HRC conducting the war the same way the Bush crowd did and possibly not even asked for it in the first place. This was personal for Bush and HRC decided to let politics stop at the water’s edge and back her President’s back. By all means ask what she might have done differently, but don’t disqualify her irrevocably.
jconwaysays
Her presidential judgment. She still has not made it clear she wouldn’t make the same mistake as President. And the “maybe a dem would’ve done better” argument is false. It was an irrational, illegal, unjustified war that would’ve ended in disaster no matter who was in charge of fighting it.
Christophersays
…and if they did I don’t think they were likely to engage in torture, etc. For that matter some other GOPers might not either. For Bush this was personal and he admitted as much.
jconwaysays
All the evidence points to the fact that Hillary would have initiated it. She still hasn’t admitted it was a mistake.
Even with no Abu Gharib, no de-baathification, no disbanding of the army, and a Holbrooke instead of a Bremer-it’s still a massive clusterfuck, we still get sectarian war, and we still get AQI and ISIS in some form or another. We should’ve let Saddam stay in power-we have aided or tolerated dictators that were far worse (including for a time , Saddam)
Christophersays
We should have focused on Afghanistan, but when Bill was President and Saddam played with us I often wished we would just get rid of him once and for all, so I’m not at all complaining about the result. I don’t expect her to admit the vote was a mistake; I’m not convinced the vote per se was.
jconwaysays
More several hundred thousand Iraqis and over five thousand Americans would be alive today had we allowed Saddam to stay in power. Iran wouldn’t be building a bomb, egging on the Saudis, or running a client state in Iraq. There would be no ISIS, no AQI, and America would be significantly safer.
I’m not defending Saddam-I happen to oppose a war of choice overthrowing the Kim regime in North Korea as-and it is far, far worse than Saddam ever was. But, he was a useful buffer between Iran and the Saudi’s, and he kept both of their regional ambitions in check. He was contained, the Kurdish state would’ve been just as successful has it is now thanks to no fly zones. And of course, he never had WMD.
JimCsays
Reward bold Progressives in Congress, and punish the timid and craven when that can be done without harm.
What does that mean? Only primary people in safe seats? That contradicts your point about redistricting.
And by the way your point about gerrymandering is immoral. We should have logical districts, partisanship be damned. It should be done by special commission and taken from legislators altogether.
jconwaysays
Increasingly the interests of progressive activists are not so neatly dovetailed with the partisan interests of the Democratic party. This is why I am getting tired of the fear mongering, it reminds me of voters on the other side who told me to my face when I canvassed for Duckworth in Henry Hyde’s old district “the Democrats are the party of abortion, even if I like them on Social Security and jobs, I have to vote for the Republican”.
We are starting to employ the same logic on our side, we are seeing it employed even locally where the few laudable areas where Tisei and Baker have taken the right stance are being twisted into liabilities. We are now running on cultural issues to the exclusion of the economic issues that once formed the back bone of our party and it’s coalition that, with a few exceptions, held near total control from 1940-1980 over the House, Senate, and the Presidency.
War and peace, civil liberties or government surveillance, and free market or social democracy are important binary issues that ought to be explored within our party, the result of that debate only strengthens it. Let us not have litmus tests and third rails to scare our base into voting merely against the other side, rather than for our own.
Trickle upsays
I think you meant to say he nearly died, not that he was nearly hit. He was absolutely struck by a taxi and gravely hurt. Confused about the direction of traffic, he said.
Much rather talk about that than this other nonsense about drafting Warren to run for president, or whatever the current fantasy is.
I guess a Democratic party that actually stands up for it’s stated values is a fantasy to you? How cynically sad, and clinically depressing.
Trickle upsays
those values are so important they deserve better than make believe.
jconwaysays
I find that attitude highly condescending and counter productive. Was it make believe, to believe that Deval Patrick could beat two established candidates like Reilly and Gabrielli? Was it make believe when Obama beat the son of a Chicago machine hand, a multimillionaire, and a former presidential candidate to win a Senate seat, or to beat back the Clinton machine? Was it make believe to think that Liz Warren could beat Scott Brown, according to every poll, the most popular politician in New England at the time he ran for re-election? Stranger things have happened in politics than strong progressive winning their nominations and the general election. And calling such a result a fantasy is the first step to precluding it from happening.
For the record, I don’t want Liz to run, but I definitely want someone to run against Hillary and force her to the left. Giving her a free pass to run to the right so she can carry Arkansas and single handedly wipe out the republicans is the real fantasy being discussed here.
Trickle upsays
Well for one thing, you need a candidate. Or are you just saying Warren should run but not to win?
I’m not actually sure that’s the best use of her talent and cachet and willingness to speak the truth. But maybe.
A progressive candidate vs. Clinton would be useful if, at minimum, it mobilized grass roots and shifted the Overton window for important issues.
Maybe that’s what you meant when you said “forcing Hillary to run to the left” (in the primaries), which by itself is not worth much.
jconwaysays
First off, Warren has not, and never will be my candidate.
For three important reasons;
1) She is not, will not, and never will be, a candidate for President
I have a good friend on her staff who is a family friend of Warren’s and has known her his whole life, he has assured me she won’t run. And I believe her when she says she won’t run, she also already pseudo-endorsed Hillary in a letter urging the former to run. I just don’t see it this time around, and I don’t see that as her own view of what her calling truly is.
2) She will do far more as a Senator
She has a specialized skill set in crafting important and far reaching financial and banking regulation. She is an expert at that, and is a specialist, not a generalist. Some Senators specialize in foreign policy, other in financial overhauls. I see her doing a lot of good on the domestic front for years, if not decades to come, in the Senate.
She is plainly disinterested in foreign policy-which is great for a Senior Senator who is paired with a junior Senator that is. Teddy and Kerry were such a pair, Warren and Markey are proving to be a similar one. They can tackle different issues. I just don’t see her becoming the generalist that a President needs to be, wanting to water her message down, or talk about ethanol in Iowa while shaking hands at the right diner in NH. I just don’t see that happening or being what she wants to be.
3) She wouldn’t win the nomination
I just don’t see it happening like it did for Obama. She is not nearly as charismatic, and lacks the built in national base he had.
Now that this is out of the way, my overall point, is that we need a strong progressive to take on Hillary. I personally favor Brian Schweitzer, whom I think has the experience to be a credible President and superior political gifts as a speaker and campaigner to actually beat Hillary, while being capable of winning a general election against a Republican. I also want Bernie to run, to get his ideas and credentials out. Social democracy once had a place at our party and should again, and if libertarianism and tea party conservatism can be taken seriously as mainstream political ideas in the US-so should socialism.
I honestly regret, and I think he does too, that Russ Feingold didn’t run in 2008, and I want him to run now. We will get Russ and Brian taking Hillary on over her bad foreign policies and civil liberties, while Bernie takes her to task over her closeness to Wall Street and the need for an economic agenda. I would probably vote for Russ who has the combination of views closest to my own on economic, civil liberty, and foreign policy issues, unless Brian made it a real contest.
Those are three serious candidates, with different constituencies in the Democratic party, that are proven national fundraisers with national bases from which to run campaigns. Kos would love all three. And I think they would have a great debate for the future of the party. And I think all three are gearing up for a real run-unlike Liz.
jconwaysays
Especially considering that a Hillary candidacy or even a nomination is not a certainty, or is your memory that freakin short?
Not to mention she has never apologized for her support for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the Consumer Bankruptcy reform, she continues to accept big bucks from big banks, she is a johnny come lately on gay marriage, and she continues to want to invade and bomb other countries, with the same frequency and urgency as Sen. McCain.
I think all of that is fair game to debate and discuss. The Democratic party should have a debate and a discussion about those issues, and force it’s nominee, even if it is Clinton, to at least grow from that discussion and adhere to a platform that today’s Democrats actually want, not just a repeat of the 1996 playbook when the fear of a Dole-Gingrich government was the only reason to vote for Bill.
It’s ostensibly a democratic party, not a monarchist one.
ryepower12says
She didn’t vote for that one. She dodged that vote. Her record before the vote was mixed. She wasn’t any hero on the issue, but she doesn’t really deserve the blame there, either.
Joe Biden, on the other hand, is a completely different story… He was a huge cheerleader for it and is a key reason why I’m glad it seems like he won’t even try to take Hillary on.
The war hawk issues re: Hillary are legit, but for someone that a lot of people on Wall St. have wooed very hard, she’s shown at Kraft a little spine on domestic issues. The differences were often subtle, but get domestic policy plans/issues were more liberal than Obama’s in ’08 and is not a huge secret that she’s a little more liberal than her husband – and she has no illusions of what to expect from this congress.
She will be someone we can work with on passing good bills – she may not be Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren, but is someone those two will be able to work with to get stuff done. The point is she isn’t Chuck Schumer or Joe Biden – and she’s not her husband either.
So the issue comes down to matters of war and peace – but like we’ve done with Obama, I think activists can hold the line on peace by being vocal every time there’s a moment like we had with Syria in the Obama administration. The people talked him down on that one – and we’ll talk Hillary down on whatever comes up, if we must, too. She isn’t Dick Cheney.
ryepower12says
“At least” not Kraft
“But her domestic policy plans” not ‘get domestic policy’
Christopher says
She has repeatedly said she isn’t running.
SomervilleTom says
has repeatedly said he isn’t running until he decided to run.
Ms. Warren also wasn’t running for the Senate until she was persuaded that the nation needed her to do so.
Jasiu says
Remember that while she was still a federal employee she could not say anything about running. Once she left the job, she started her listening tour around the state, making it clear that she was considering it.
No such restrictions on her now. As with The Governor, I believe her when she says no.
ryepower12 says
most people who say they aren’t running for President, but do are at least a little more cagey or playful about it.
They are rarely, if ever, so emphatic about it. Elizabeth Warren has gone out of her way to be as clear as she’s been on the matter.
kirth says
I’m afraid the Big Money would somehow force her to compromise her principles to the point that she’d be another Barack Obama, or failing that, would manufacture a massive, unrelenting Swift Boat campaign to defeat her. I know they tried when she ran for the Senate, but I think they were as surprised as everyone at her popularity. They won’t be surprised again.
She may be more effective as an unbought Senator than she would be as a compromised President.
Patrick says
It’s good if people reread the New Republic’s take on it from a year ago.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
My dream 2016 race is Warren vs Paul. I’d buy those debates on pay-per-view.
ryepower12 says
Elizabeth Warren to run for President. I’m a huge fan of Hillary, but Elizabeth Warren would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and worth upsetting the status quo on.
So I get it — I really do.
But we have to face the reality that Elizabeth Warren has said, in no uncertain terms, that she isn’t running for President. I don’t know how much more emphatic she can be about it.
It can’t be some secret ploy or fake-out, either, because running for President is serious business and requires a serious time commitment. She would need to be taking all the actions of a Presidential candidate today to be in a position to beat Hillary years from now — and much as she’s broadened her national profile over the past year, she’s not raising that kind of money or building that kind of campaign infrastructure.
She’s an incredible bright person and knows all this — she’s not going to run a campaign she couldn’t have a chance in winning, which means she’s not going to get into this race late.
I hope she’ll consider running for President in 2020, if for some reason Hillary (or any other Democrat nominated) loses. I think that’s something that may be more likely to happen.
But until then, let’s just deal in reality and focus on people who may actually run for President in 2016 — because it’s not going to be Elizabeth Warren, much as so many of us wish she would.
markbernstein says
I’m sorry: this is a silly topic.
Hillary Clinton will run, and will be our next president. There will be a few moments of drama and tension in the process — remember Obama losing the debate? — but that’s how this will play out.
HOWEVER: this isn’t just a fun game. Lots of lives and livelihoods are at stake here — especially as the Republican nominee is quite likely to be dangerously crazy and radical. Therefore, it behooves everyone to think through low-probability scenarios.
That’s all the Warren campaign is. Stuff happens: Winston Churchill nearly got hit by a Manhattan taxicab in 1934. If something very unlikely happens and Hillary decides she doesn’t want to run after all, we want to have a list of phone numbers. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O’Malley, John Kerry, and add your name here.
It’s not going to happen. It’s not worth handicapping or studying; even if it did happen (which it won’t), what happens next would depend on exactly why it wasn’t going to be Hillary and when everything changed.
That said: Warren did write a campaign book. It seems early and overkill for her senate seat, but it’s not unreasonable: we almost lost a generation of health care because we took that seat for granted in 2010. It’s possible the book was written for the eventuality that Hilllary might have decided in 2013 to retire from public life. It’s possible that, like John Kerry, Warren has another job that she’d like to fill someday, a job even more important than her current job. It’s not obvious what that would be. Might she hope to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Might she hope to succeed Janet Yellen?
Or does she plan to champion some piece of major legislation in the Clinton administration — something so big that it requires a senator of presidential stature?
But this sort of speculation about a primary contest is destructive; it gets people worked up over something that ain’t going to happen.
SomervilleTom says
Hillary Clinton may well get the nomination, and I will almost surely vote for her in preference to whatever clown the GOP chooses.
Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton shows little indication of taking us in the direction we need to go. Most importantly, I see no indication that she will do anything at all about our obscene and increasing wealth and income concentration — if anything, she will take us in the opposite direction.
I get that Elizabeth Warren is not running. What I don’t yet get is what happens to all of us if we perpetuate the self-destructive spiral into economic disaster that both parties (dominated by the 1%) demand in exchange for their support.
markbernstein says
a) Assuming Hillary Clinton runs, make sure she wins.
b) Get more Progressives into the House and Senate.
c) Get mote Progressives and more Democrats into state legislatures, in time to control redistricting after the 2020 census.
d) Reward bold Progressives in Congress, and punish the timid and craven when that can be done without harm.
e) Always keep in mind that the President is chiefly vital as a firebreak; she has limited (but powerful) initiative but she can also stymie the dangerously crazy elements of the House Republicans.
f) Remember always that, the last time we argued that a Clintonite was “almost as bad” as a Republican, our reward was eight years of Bush 43 and an unnecessary war.
The next president may well inherit a legislative climate of complete deadlock, following on two years of incessant vetoes and, quite possibly, a Supreme Court with multiple vacancies for which multiple nominees have been filibustered. Our choice is not whether Clinton or Warren would be better in that situation: our choice is whether Clinton or Rand Paul will be better.
jconway says
Can’t we cross apply all of that to what centrists told liberals we needed to do in the 1990s? Or under Obama the past six years?
An unncessary war endorsed by the very person you are asking us to vote for, still waiting for that apology by the way, guess it was a hard choice she doesn’t want to talk about.
A lot harder to be a bold progressive in Congress when your leaders who are supposed to be on your side, stymie your attempts to actually pass progressive legislation. Would Hillary need to be punished in 2020 if she ended up governing in the same timid and craven mold as her husband and predecessor? Or would we have to ‘wait for next time’ yet again?
Well no it’s not. Our choice could include a plethora of candidates since the first primary is nearly two years away, and such a challenger, even if he or she were to lose, would certainly force Hillary to deal with their positions and take on the issues, no?
As to the second question, there are frankly important questions of war or peace and civil liberties or government survelliance where Rand is in the right and Hillary is in the wrong. I would never vote for Rand Paul, but I also am incredibly uncomfortable swallowing the liberal hawk view of the world that Hillary has. One shouldn’t have to choose between support for Social Security and a sensible foreign policy that doesn’t rely on pre-emptive war, drones, or domestic wiretaps. That choice sir, is a false one, since there is still time for a progressive challenger to emerge. The GOP boogeyman act is wearing thin, particularly when we remember how much Obama failed to accomplish when he actually had Congressional control. And how many Clinton veterans were behind that very failure.
Christopher says
Sure, she voted for what she thought was an authorization to use force given what was known at the time. I wasn’t a big fan, but I remember at the time fully understanding why it was granted. Bush was the Commander in Chief; Bush overplayed his authorization; Bush insisted on finding an excuse to go after Iraq; Bush mismanaged it on so many levels. All HRC did was cast a vote that even if it had gone the other way I suspect Bush would have figured out a way to do a lot of what he did anyway. If we got progressive legislation through Congress do you honestly think HRC would veto it?
JimC says
Not her, not John Kerry … not even Barack Obama, who admitted at one point that he probably would have voted for the war.
She doesn’t get all the blame, but she gets some. Let’s not forget that she ran a pretty hawkish campaign in 2008.
Christopher says
It makes no sense for it to be part of the 2016 dialogue except maybe as a backdrop to asking the question what is your criteria for sending troops into harm’s way. I was ready to move on in 2008; I definitely will be in 2016.
JimC says
WAR. Not insurance industry regulations or whatever. FREAKING WAR — death, destruction, mayhem.
Sorry but you’re not allowed to move on, and neither are our feckless leaders.
They knew — they ALL knew — that the war was a crock, and they voted for it anyway. They authorized murder to keep their jobs. If that’s not unforgivable, I don’t know what is.
I mean, we can make “call of history” arguments, America’s role in the world, blah blah blah. We can accept that they did their best under the circumstances. (Well, I can’t, but that’s one argument.) But they screwed up, royally, and people (a lot of people) died as a result.
jconway says
With all due respect, this is a profoundly ignorant statement.
Read this article, and tell me Hillary Clinton isn’t as responsible as George W Bush for this continuing humanitarian and political disaster. The rise of Iran, the strength of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the instability in Syria, not to mention the all out regionalized Sunnia-Shia conflict-can be directly laid at the footstep of George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton. According to her recent slow selling book, if she and David Petraues had their way, our troops would still be there in the middle of the slaughter if she had her way. Alongside ground forces in Libya, massive air strikes against Syria (which these days, would only serve to assist ISIS in taking over THAT country).
Hers is a record of good intentioned bellicosity in the face of overwhelming evidence and long term strategic thinking that would demand alternatives to force. This entire mess will take decades and multiple administrations to clean up, it may in fact keep us from the Pacific Pivot and stopping the rise of China. It may in fact, prevent us from reversing the American decline.
Dealing with a smoldering middle east will continue to overextend our military, bankrupt our treasury, and distract us from the long term needs of our people. And asking one of the loudest, least apologetic, and continued proponents of the war that started this mess to preside over the clean up is a tall order. Particularly when she is taking advice from the same people who wanted the war then, and want to keep fighting it now.
It ain’t ancient history if people are still dying from the mistake.
SomervilleTom says
Sorry, but we committed grave moral wrongs in that illegal and unnecessary war. Not just in the runup to it, but in its prosecution and its aftermath.
I don’t remember Ms. Clinton or Mr. Kerry calling for investigation and prosecution of the war criminals.
When folks talk of “moving on”, I’m reminded of the feverish intensity with which the GOP wanted us to “move on” without investigating or prosecuting the many crimes of Richard Nixon and his henchmen. We are STILL paying the price for that, each time another Democrat is relentlessly hounded and the GOP partisans cite the “partisan attacks” on Richard Nixon as precedent. The same is true for the Iran-Contra scandal.
The first step in “moving on”, like “forgiveness”, is repentance. The ONLY way to accomplish repentance, on a national scale, is to investigate and PROVE (and therefore admit) the moral wrongs and war crimes that were committed.
Neither Germany nor Japan were allowed to “move on” after their war crimes of WWII, and we spiral ever downward into moral apathy, cynicism, or worse when we attempt skip the necessary first step.
Sorry, but I think “moving on” is absolutely the wrong thing to do about the Iraq War.
Christopher says
Maybe I wasn’t as artful as I could have been, but I’m not sure how else to put it. At the end of the day PRESIDENTS are responsible for our war footing and conduct. Yes, I know Congress technically declares war and has some authorization roles due to the War Powers Act. I also know that proving hypotheticals is pretty much impossible, but I don’t see a President HRC conducting the war the same way the Bush crowd did and possibly not even asked for it in the first place. This was personal for Bush and HRC decided to let politics stop at the water’s edge and back her President’s back. By all means ask what she might have done differently, but don’t disqualify her irrevocably.
jconway says
Her presidential judgment. She still has not made it clear she wouldn’t make the same mistake as President. And the “maybe a dem would’ve done better” argument is false. It was an irrational, illegal, unjustified war that would’ve ended in disaster no matter who was in charge of fighting it.
Christopher says
…and if they did I don’t think they were likely to engage in torture, etc. For that matter some other GOPers might not either. For Bush this was personal and he admitted as much.
jconway says
All the evidence points to the fact that Hillary would have initiated it. She still hasn’t admitted it was a mistake.
Even with no Abu Gharib, no de-baathification, no disbanding of the army, and a Holbrooke instead of a Bremer-it’s still a massive clusterfuck, we still get sectarian war, and we still get AQI and ISIS in some form or another. We should’ve let Saddam stay in power-we have aided or tolerated dictators that were far worse (including for a time , Saddam)
Christopher says
We should have focused on Afghanistan, but when Bill was President and Saddam played with us I often wished we would just get rid of him once and for all, so I’m not at all complaining about the result. I don’t expect her to admit the vote was a mistake; I’m not convinced the vote per se was.
jconway says
More several hundred thousand Iraqis and over five thousand Americans would be alive today had we allowed Saddam to stay in power. Iran wouldn’t be building a bomb, egging on the Saudis, or running a client state in Iraq. There would be no ISIS, no AQI, and America would be significantly safer.
I’m not defending Saddam-I happen to oppose a war of choice overthrowing the Kim regime in North Korea as-and it is far, far worse than Saddam ever was. But, he was a useful buffer between Iran and the Saudi’s, and he kept both of their regional ambitions in check. He was contained, the Kurdish state would’ve been just as successful has it is now thanks to no fly zones. And of course, he never had WMD.
JimC says
What does that mean? Only primary people in safe seats? That contradicts your point about redistricting.
And by the way your point about gerrymandering is immoral. We should have logical districts, partisanship be damned. It should be done by special commission and taken from legislators altogether.
jconway says
Increasingly the interests of progressive activists are not so neatly dovetailed with the partisan interests of the Democratic party. This is why I am getting tired of the fear mongering, it reminds me of voters on the other side who told me to my face when I canvassed for Duckworth in Henry Hyde’s old district “the Democrats are the party of abortion, even if I like them on Social Security and jobs, I have to vote for the Republican”.
We are starting to employ the same logic on our side, we are seeing it employed even locally where the few laudable areas where Tisei and Baker have taken the right stance are being twisted into liabilities. We are now running on cultural issues to the exclusion of the economic issues that once formed the back bone of our party and it’s coalition that, with a few exceptions, held near total control from 1940-1980 over the House, Senate, and the Presidency.
War and peace, civil liberties or government surveillance, and free market or social democracy are important binary issues that ought to be explored within our party, the result of that debate only strengthens it. Let us not have litmus tests and third rails to scare our base into voting merely against the other side, rather than for our own.
Trickle up says
I think you meant to say he nearly died, not that he was nearly hit. He was absolutely struck by a taxi and gravely hurt. Confused about the direction of traffic, he said.
Much rather talk about that than this other nonsense about drafting Warren to run for president, or whatever the current fantasy is.
markbernstein says
Thank you — absolutely right.
jconway says
I guess a Democratic party that actually stands up for it’s stated values is a fantasy to you? How cynically sad, and clinically depressing.
Trickle up says
those values are so important they deserve better than make believe.
jconway says
I find that attitude highly condescending and counter productive. Was it make believe, to believe that Deval Patrick could beat two established candidates like Reilly and Gabrielli? Was it make believe when Obama beat the son of a Chicago machine hand, a multimillionaire, and a former presidential candidate to win a Senate seat, or to beat back the Clinton machine? Was it make believe to think that Liz Warren could beat Scott Brown, according to every poll, the most popular politician in New England at the time he ran for re-election? Stranger things have happened in politics than strong progressive winning their nominations and the general election. And calling such a result a fantasy is the first step to precluding it from happening.
For the record, I don’t want Liz to run, but I definitely want someone to run against Hillary and force her to the left. Giving her a free pass to run to the right so she can carry Arkansas and single handedly wipe out the republicans is the real fantasy being discussed here.
Trickle up says
Well for one thing, you need a candidate. Or are you just saying Warren should run but not to win?
I’m not actually sure that’s the best use of her talent and cachet and willingness to speak the truth. But maybe.
A progressive candidate vs. Clinton would be useful if, at minimum, it mobilized grass roots and shifted the Overton window for important issues.
Maybe that’s what you meant when you said “forcing Hillary to run to the left” (in the primaries), which by itself is not worth much.
jconway says
First off, Warren has not, and never will be my candidate.
For three important reasons;
1) She is not, will not, and never will be, a candidate for President
I have a good friend on her staff who is a family friend of Warren’s and has known her his whole life, he has assured me she won’t run. And I believe her when she says she won’t run, she also already pseudo-endorsed Hillary in a letter urging the former to run. I just don’t see it this time around, and I don’t see that as her own view of what her calling truly is.
2) She will do far more as a Senator
She has a specialized skill set in crafting important and far reaching financial and banking regulation. She is an expert at that, and is a specialist, not a generalist. Some Senators specialize in foreign policy, other in financial overhauls. I see her doing a lot of good on the domestic front for years, if not decades to come, in the Senate.
She is plainly disinterested in foreign policy-which is great for a Senior Senator who is paired with a junior Senator that is. Teddy and Kerry were such a pair, Warren and Markey are proving to be a similar one. They can tackle different issues. I just don’t see her becoming the generalist that a President needs to be, wanting to water her message down, or talk about ethanol in Iowa while shaking hands at the right diner in NH. I just don’t see that happening or being what she wants to be.
3) She wouldn’t win the nomination
I just don’t see it happening like it did for Obama. She is not nearly as charismatic, and lacks the built in national base he had.
Now that this is out of the way, my overall point, is that we need a strong progressive to take on Hillary. I personally favor Brian Schweitzer, whom I think has the experience to be a credible President and superior political gifts as a speaker and campaigner to actually beat Hillary, while being capable of winning a general election against a Republican. I also want Bernie to run, to get his ideas and credentials out. Social democracy once had a place at our party and should again, and if libertarianism and tea party conservatism can be taken seriously as mainstream political ideas in the US-so should socialism.
I honestly regret, and I think he does too, that Russ Feingold didn’t run in 2008, and I want him to run now. We will get Russ and Brian taking Hillary on over her bad foreign policies and civil liberties, while Bernie takes her to task over her closeness to Wall Street and the need for an economic agenda. I would probably vote for Russ who has the combination of views closest to my own on economic, civil liberty, and foreign policy issues, unless Brian made it a real contest.
Those are three serious candidates, with different constituencies in the Democratic party, that are proven national fundraisers with national bases from which to run campaigns. Kos would love all three. And I think they would have a great debate for the future of the party. And I think all three are gearing up for a real run-unlike Liz.
jconway says
Especially considering that a Hillary candidacy or even a nomination is not a certainty, or is your memory that freakin short?
Not to mention she has never apologized for her support for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the Consumer Bankruptcy reform, she continues to accept big bucks from big banks, she is a johnny come lately on gay marriage, and she continues to want to invade and bomb other countries, with the same frequency and urgency as Sen. McCain.
I think all of that is fair game to debate and discuss. The Democratic party should have a debate and a discussion about those issues, and force it’s nominee, even if it is Clinton, to at least grow from that discussion and adhere to a platform that today’s Democrats actually want, not just a repeat of the 1996 playbook when the fear of a Dole-Gingrich government was the only reason to vote for Bill.
It’s ostensibly a democratic party, not a monarchist one.
ryepower12 says
She didn’t vote for that one. She dodged that vote. Her record before the vote was mixed. She wasn’t any hero on the issue, but she doesn’t really deserve the blame there, either.
Joe Biden, on the other hand, is a completely different story… He was a huge cheerleader for it and is a key reason why I’m glad it seems like he won’t even try to take Hillary on.
The war hawk issues re: Hillary are legit, but for someone that a lot of people on Wall St. have wooed very hard, she’s shown at Kraft a little spine on domestic issues. The differences were often subtle, but get domestic policy plans/issues were more liberal than Obama’s in ’08 and is not a huge secret that she’s a little more liberal than her husband – and she has no illusions of what to expect from this congress.
She will be someone we can work with on passing good bills – she may not be Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren, but is someone those two will be able to work with to get stuff done. The point is she isn’t Chuck Schumer or Joe Biden – and she’s not her husband either.
So the issue comes down to matters of war and peace – but like we’ve done with Obama, I think activists can hold the line on peace by being vocal every time there’s a moment like we had with Syria in the Obama administration. The people talked him down on that one – and we’ll talk Hillary down on whatever comes up, if we must, too. She isn’t Dick Cheney.
ryepower12 says
“At least” not Kraft
“But her domestic policy plans” not ‘get domestic policy’