consultants are sandburs

Monday, November 11, 2013

New Republic, Mother Jones, and now Crabgrass. Each realizing Hillary Clinton is not inevitable as the 2016 Dem presidential candidate. Elizabeth Warren is the better woman for the office. The better person.

MoJo, here. New Republic, here. Warren has such a politive untarnished presence. Sleaze free. All a Democrat should be. Closer to Wellstone than Hillary is to Wellstone.

we’re three years from the next presidential election, and Hillary Clinton is, once again, the inevitable Democratic nominee. Congressional Republicans have spent months investigating her like she already resides in the White House. The New York Times has its own dedicated Clinton correspondent, whose job it is to chronicle everything from Hillary’s summer accommodations (“CLINTONS FIND A NEW PLACE TO VACATION IN THE HAMPTONS”) to her distinct style of buckraking (“IN CLINTON FUNDRAISING, EXPECT A FULL EMBRACE”). There is a feature-length Hillary biopic in the works, and a well-funded super PAC—“Ready for Hillary”—bent on easing her way into the race. And then there is Clinton herself, who sounds increasingly candidential. Since leaving the State Department, Clinton has already delivered meaty, headline-grabbing orations on voting rights and Syria.

Yet for all the astrophysical force of these developments, anyone who lived through 2008 knows that inevitable candidates have a way of becoming distinctly evitable. [...]

The last time Clinton ran, of course, the issue was Iraq and the gleaming new mug was Barack Obama’s. This time the debate will be about the power of America’s wealthiest. And, far more than with foreign policy, which most Democrats agreed on by 2008, this disagreement will cut to the very core of the party: what it stands for and who it represents.

On one side is a majority of Democratic voters, who are angrier, more disaffected, and altogether more populist than they’ve been in years. They are more attuned to income inequality than before the Obama presidency and more supportive of Social Security and Medicare. They’ve grown fonder of regulation and more skeptical of big business. A recent Pew poll showed that voters under 30—who skew overwhelmingly Democratic—view socialism more favorably than capitalism. Above all, Democrats are increasingly hostile to Wall Street and believe the government should rein it in.

On the other side is a group of Democratic elites associated with the Clinton era who, though they may have moved somewhat leftward in response to the recession—happily supporting economic stimulus and generous unemployment benefits—still fundamentally believe the economy functions best with a large, powerful, highly complex financial sector. Many members of this group have either made or raised enormous amounts of cash on Wall Street. They were deeply influential in limiting the reach of Dodd-Frank, the financial reform measure Obama signed in July of 2010.

But as central as this debate is to the identity of the party, Democrats won’t openly litigate it until they’re forced to ponder life after Obama

That's the New Republic lead in, links omitted, so have a look at the entire thing. It is speculative. But I would gladly support Warren over Clinton in an eye blink. As in favoring daylight over a dark night. I would have no hesitation ever, voting Warren. Clinton, it would be like the second Obama run, after he became known. Well, it's him or Mitt Romney, is how that vote shook out.

Surely Hillary Clinton would be more appealing than a Bobby Jindal candidacy. Or over Rick Santorum. But you get to Hillary vs Rand Paul, and Rand is a bank skeptic, unlike Clinton. Warren, as big a bank skeptic as Rand Paul, is a populist too. What's not to like? She'd disarm Rand Paul's stronger points better than Clinton ever could.

No comments: