While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

[BK]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Politicians are just looking for a steady pay check with a phenomenal defined pension plan.

As long as we believe these characters can rebuild our economy we are in trouble.

I'm waiting for the first politician who stands up and turns down all the financial benefits of being President in order to help rebuild the economy.....I suspect it won't happen in my life time.

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

None of the known, talked about candidates of either party have any appeal.

None of them have any idea how to rebuild the economy to increase the middle class and create jobs.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

I don't know about Warren.

If she was so principled, would she have compromised her principals with her self created narrative of Native American ethnicity/minority? I know this is not a real biggie...but often big problems are found in little things.

Warren has her 11 commandments found here:

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/21/5918063...show-democrats

Does Wall Street need stronger rules(the clarion call of ALL politicans, including the current President who has done NOTHING) or simply strong enforcement of the rules that already exist? 6-7 years on and we haven't seen a single player do the "perp walk". NOT ONE.

Do people want politicians TALKING about a minimum living wage for McJobs(where part-time high school students filling them has been replaced by adults falling down the economic ladder) or do people NEED politicians effectively facilitating(or getting out of the way of) new business development and job creation?

"Immigration reform" without mention of border security/national sovereignty could be easily(and justifiably) perceived as a long term strategic effort to permanently re-engineer the US(stack the deck in favour of liberal/progressive political machines), not unlike the effort to break California into 6 states to put more liberal/progressive Senator cards in the deck.

I have to be honest. Elizabeth Warren doesn't really appeal to me at all at this stage.

She possesses some of the liberal points I strongly support(I'm a hippy on social issues), but I don't see her earning any/many points where I an quite conservative(finance/econ, business, sovereignty/security).

But most importantly, Elizabeth Warren fails to acknowledge the broken US political system and a desperate need to repair/improve it.

Where there is corruption in the world it's often due to a lack of taxation and law enforcement.

The US possesses more than sufficient taxation(granted who pays and how much can be adjusted) and more than sufficient laws....and while tactical(local) corruption is quite low in the US, strategic(national) corruption via special interest money in politics is completely out of control.

I don't think you could ever possibly eliminate corruption at the Strategic/National level in the US...but surely it can be reduced to a more acceptable level.

-------

To me, the ultimate candidate for President of the US would be someone who is focused exclusively on the following:

*True reform of campaign finance/political lobbying in the US at the Federal level, including making it illegal for Members of Congress or their staff from EVER working as lobbyists

*Give the SEC/FBI significant dedicated resources and investigative independence on financial crimes, and greater independence of the DOJ(without Executive/Legislative Branch interference) to give the public a couple of high profile players doing the perp walk and time in prison to satiate public baying for Wall Street blood.

*A plan to facilitate(or get out of the way of) new business development and job creation, probably by reducing bureaucracy(shoot for the US to get back into the top 5 countries, or even #1 for ease of setting up a new business)

If you can achieve those 3 things, I think the US would be heading in a good direction...very closely followed by the previously mentioned need(I believe by EJ a couple months back) to promote policy that would make housing/education/health care more affordable.

----------

With Elizabeth Warren, I seriously wonder about EJ's comments a few years ago about Elliot Spitzer. When Spitzer went off message, he got destroyed by ammunition(compromise) special interests had on him.

And the only way Spitzer probably made it through the several gateways required to get elected was because he had compromised himself.

Warren's complete failure to include the glaringly obvious and ultimately existential campaign finance reform problem the US has, tells me she's not worthy.

Just my opinion.

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Warren lost me at "you didn't build that."

Also the fake claim of Indian heritage to obtain hiring preference.

[shiny!]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

i have huge admiration for warren, but too much cynicism to think she could make significant change. as she says, the system is rigged, and things aren't bad enough for warren get the nomination, let alone to win, let alone for her to carry a congress that would follow her lead.

Sadly I agee. She actually has principles and means what she says. Neither party will tolerate that.

We need a populist party but I don't see any possibility of a 3rd party having a chance.

[Slimprofits]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

and things aren't bad enough for warren get the nomination

I agree, very low probability. Something truly crazy and unpredictable would have to happen between now and late 2015 / early 2016...

Looking at the odds, on the other side of the aisle, Sen. Rubio, Gov. Christie and Jeb Bush are the favorites to win the nomination. However, I see no indication that Jeb Bush is actually conducting a campaign. And Chris Christie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A2IXsB7C0Q


Rubio vs Clinton in 2016

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

i have huge admiration for warren, but too much cynicism to think she could make significant change. as she says, the system is rigged, and things aren't bad enough for warren get the nomination, let alone to win, let alone for her to carry a congress that would follow her lead.

obama was going to end partisan bickering, remember? he was going to get past the culture wars of the baby boom generation, remember? i think the same fate would befall efforts to "unrig" the system.

[shiny!]

Agree? Disagree? What do iTulipers think of Elizabeth Warren?

While Hillary Clinton offers a resume, Elizabeth Warren offers a plan
By Byron York | July 21, 2014 | 8:31 pm

It seems almost too obvious to mention, but presidential candidates need a clear idea of why they want to be president. In the past few days, Democrats have heard that their still-undeclared frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, needs time to think about the question. Meanwhile, another undeclared hopeful, Elizabeth Warren, is thrilling liberal audiences with a forceful, point-by-point declaration of the principles that would guide her as president. The contrast is striking.

Clinton is offering Democrats her resume. Warren is offering them a plan.

In an interview with CNN on Monday, former president Bill Clinton said his wife needs time to "think through" what she might want to accomplish if elected to the White House. "We've reached a point in our life when we think you really shouldn't run for office if you don't have a clear idea of what you can do and a unique contribution you can make and you can outline that," Bill Clinton said. "Now that the book is done, she wants time to think about that and work through it."
Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter!

The former president said "this has been the first free time" in years that his wife has had to think things over. But the Hillary vision problem is nothing new; the weak spot in her White House ambitions has always been offering voters a reason she should be president. That was the case in 2008, when she presented her experience as First Lady and senator -- not her vision -- as the main argument for her candidacy. Now it appears Clinton again views her experience, this time broadened to include a term as Secretary of State, as her prime qualification for the job.

In 2008, voters chose a far less experienced candidate who presented them with a more compelling vision. They could do the same in 2016.

The latest version of that compelling vision was on display last week in Warren's address to Netroots Nation, a yearly gathering of progressive activists. Warren has not said she will run for president, despite the chants of "Run, Liz run!" that nearly drowned out her speech. But Warren sketched out where she stands and how she would govern. The ideas she presented aren't new; they're progressive boilerplate. But they are a plan.

Warren gave the crowd her by-now familiar verdict that the American economic system is "rigged." She promised to fight against the rich and powerful. She pledged "a fight over economics, a fight over privilege, a fight over power," but most importantly, "a fight over values." ("Fight" is perhaps Warren's favorite word; she used it 40 times in a 15-minute speech.)

And then Warren presented a manifesto of sorts. "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it," she began.

"We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."

"We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."

"We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."

Warren went on to outline 11 points in all. She promised to fight for a "livable wage," to fight for relief from student debt, to fight to protect Social Security and Medicare, to fight for "equal pay for equal work," to fight for gay rights, to fight for immigration reform and to fight to overturn the Hobby Lobby decision and ensure that women "have a right to their bodies."

Of course the audience loved it. But Warren's message was more than just popular. It was a blessed relief for those activists in the more liberal corners of the Democratic Party who can't bear the idea of supporting an establishment candidate like Hillary Clinton who's gotten rich making speeches to Goldman Sachs. Warren's presence, even if she won't say she is running, is proof that there is a real alternative to Clinton.

But Warren offered the Netroots audience more than just a different face. She offered them an agenda. She didn't say she needed time to "think through" what needs to be done in this country. She didn't appear to wonder whether she should do anything at all.

Instead, Warren promised a spirited fight for specific things. Why wouldn't many Democrats prefer that to a candidate who's trying to figure out what she can contribute?