~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

[FACT-MAN-2]

I think Elizabeth Warren would make a fine president. But HRC's VP? Not so much. Warren is far too talented to be a good VP.

I was speaking strictly from a political POV. Her presence on the ticket could help boost HRC over the top.

But I'd much prefer to see her in the WH than HRC, who is totally in the clutches of Wall Street and wouldn't do anything to jeapardize that relationship. Warren on the other hand is intimately knowledgeable of Wall Streets dangers and would do things to curb their appetites for sleazy practices and frauds, including bringing and end to the crazy notion of "too big to fail." I expect she'd work hard to bring back Glass-Steagal.

[OlivierK]

I think Elizabeth Warren would make a fine president. But HRC's VP? Not so much. Warren is far too talented to be a good VP.

I was speaking strictly from a political POV. Her presence on the ticket could help boost HRC over the top.

But I'd much prefer to see her in the WH than HRC, who is totally in the clutches of Wall Street and wouldn't do anything to jeapardize that relationship. Warren on the other hand is intimately knowledgeable of Wall Streets dangers and would do things to curb their appetites for sleazy practices and frauds, including bringing and end to the crazy notion of "too big to fail." I expect she'd work hard to bring back Glass-Steagal.

I agree, with the caveat that I think that boosting Clinton is not an inevitable consequence of a Clinton-Warren ticket.

[FACT-MAN-2]

I think Elizabeth Warren would make a fine president. But HRC's VP? Not so much. Warren is far too talented to be a good VP.

I was speaking strictly from a political POV. Her presence on the ticket could help boost HRC over the top.

But I'd much prefer to see her in the WH than HRC, who is totally in the clutches of Wall Street and wouldn't do anything to jeapardize that relationship. Warren on the other hand is intimately knowledgeable of Wall Streets dangers and would do things to curb their appetites for sleazy practices and frauds, including bringing and end to the crazy notion of "too big to fail." I expect she'd work hard to bring back Glass-Steagal.

I agree, with the caveat that I think that boosting Clinton is not an inevitable consequence of a Clinton-Warren ticket.

Nothing's "inevitable," but my point was this: With HRC being in bed with Wall Street, which most voters abhore, that could be offset by Warren's staunch opposition to free wheeling Wall Street excesses, and on balance you'd have a better ticket.

[Steve]

Daily Kos is noting that Hillary collected $400,000 this week from Goldman Sachs for giving two speeches, her usual fee.

"I not only take money from the Evil Empire, I slam down champagne on the Death Star with Darth Vader himself!"

[Mike_L]

"No!" to Hillary, says Ralph Nader...

The Dynastic Hillary Bandwagon – Bad for America

By Ralph Nader

The Hillary Clinton for President in 2016 bandwagon has started very early and with a purpose. The idea is to get large numbers of endorsers, so that no Democratic Primary competitors dare make a move. These supporters include Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), financier George Soros and Ready for Hillary, a super PAC mobilizing with great specificity (already in Iowa).

Given this early bird launch, it is important to raise the pressing question:

Does the future of our country benefit from Hillary, another Clinton, another politician almost indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s militaristic, corporatist policies garnished by big money donors from Wall Street and other plutocratic canyons?

There is no doubt the Clintons are syrupy political charmers, beguiling many naïve Democrats who have long been vulnerable to a practiced set of comforting words or phrases camouflaging contrary deeds.

Everybody knows that Hillary is for women, children and education. She says so every day. But Democrats and others can’t get the Clintons even to support a $10.50 federal minimum wage that would almost equal the 1968 minimum wage, inflation-adjusted, and would raise the wages of 30 million workers mired in the gap between the present minimum wage of $7.25 and $10.50 an hour. It just so happens that almost two-thirds of these Americans are women, many of them single moms struggling to support their impoverished children. Nearly a million of these workers labor for Walmart, on whose Board of Directors Hillary Clinton once sat. Words hide the deeds.

As a Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hillary had to start proving that women, just like the macho men, can be belligerent and never see a weapons system and its use that they didn’t like. Never did she demonstrate any ongoing interest in debloating the massive, wasteful, duplicative military budget so as to free up big monies for domestic public works programs or other necessities.
...

CONTINUED
Full essay at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36811.htm

[NamelessFaceless]

I'm probably going to regret this, but . . .

Bookmarking

[FACT-MAN-2]

I'm probably going to regret this, but . . .

Bookmarking

Buck up and don't worry, we'll hold your hand.

[Steve]

How about Bernie Sanders? Sanders wants progressive 2016 presence

“There are people in this world who, ever since they were 12 years of age, they decided they wanted to be president of the United States,” Sanders said.

“That is honestly not me,” he continued. “Anyone who really, really wants to be president is slightly crazy because this is an unbelievably difficult job given the crises that this country faces today.”

Still, Sanders says he is willing to consider making a run if no one else with progressive views similar to his ends up taking the plunge.

It is essential, he said, to have someone in the 2016 presidential campaign who is willing to take on Wall Street, address the “collapse” of the middle class, tackle the spread of poverty and fiercely oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

He would run as an independent, which would be a mistake, in my opinion. I think he would be smarter than Ralph Nader. The Republicans are going to have a nut job, and it won't be Chris Christie as he is only supported in the north east. The race is Hilary's to lose and if he ran as a democrat he might push her left.

For some reason I feel uncomfortable with the idea of Bernie as President, and I adore the guy. I love him for speaking truth to power - I don't see him as being that power. He is the rational voice out in left field pulling things that way, away from the crazy.

[FACT-MAN-2]

How about Bernie Sanders? Sanders wants progressive 2016 presence

“There are people in this world who, ever since they were 12 years of age, they decided they wanted to be president of the United States,” Sanders said.

“That is honestly not me,” he continued. “Anyone who really, really wants to be president is slightly crazy because this is an unbelievably difficult job given the crises that this country faces today.”

Still, Sanders says he is willing to consider making a run if no one else with progressive views similar to his ends up taking the plunge.

It is essential, he said, to have someone in the 2016 presidential campaign who is willing to take on Wall Street, address the “collapse” of the middle class, tackle the spread of poverty and fiercely oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

He would run as an independent, which would be a mistake, in my opinion. I think he would be smarter than Ralph Nader. The Republicans are going to have a nut job, and it won't be Chris Christie as he is only supported in the north east. The race is Hilary's to lose and if he ran as a democrat he might push her left.

You mean drag her kicking and screaming to the Left.

For some reason I feel uncomfortable with the idea of Bernie as President, and I adore the guy. I love him for speaking truth to power - I don't see him as being that power. He is the rational voice out in left field pulling things that way, away from the crazy.

Bernie in the WH is a lot less uncomfortable than almost anyone I can think of.

I do agree with him that a progressive voice should be in the 2016 mix. However, I expect his day has come and gone, he's probably too old now to become a force to be reckoned with. But there are others who could play this role quite effectively, Senator Jeff Merkely of Oregon for example or Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) And although neither of them could challenge HRC in the primaries, she could select either of them as her running mate and it'd be OK by me, even though neither of them has the progressive chutzpa that Sanders brings.

There are 71 members of the Democratic Progressive Caucus in the Congress, many of whom could become the progressive voice Sanders think is needed in 2016. It'd be nice to hear what Sanders thinks on this.

[GT2211]

How about Bernie Sanders? Sanders wants progressive 2016 presence

“There are people in this world who, ever since they were 12 years of age, they decided they wanted to be president of the United States,” Sanders said.

“That is honestly not me,” he continued. “Anyone who really, really wants to be president is slightly crazy because this is an unbelievably difficult job given the crises that this country faces today.”

Still, Sanders says he is willing to consider making a run if no one else with progressive views similar to his ends up taking the plunge.

It is essential, he said, to have someone in the 2016 presidential campaign who is willing to take on Wall Street, address the “collapse” of the middle class, tackle the spread of poverty and fiercely oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

He would run as an independent, which would be a mistake, in my opinion. I think he would be smarter than Ralph Nader. The Republicans are going to have a nut job, and it won't be Chris Christie as he is only supported in the north east. The race is Hilary's to lose and if he ran as a democrat he might push her left.

For some reason I feel uncomfortable with the idea of Bernie as President, and I adore the guy. I love him for speaking truth to power - I don't see him as being that power. He is the rational voice out in left field pulling things that way, away from the crazy.

Christie is supported beyond the NE. His problem will be that two of the first major tests are Iowa's caucus and South Carolina's primary which are favorable to more evangelical, socially conservative candidates.

[GT2211]

Now the Atlantic's Michael Hirsh has jumped into the HRC/Warren fray.

As impressive and quotable as she is as a senator—"I'm really concerned 'too big to fail' has become 'too big for trial,'" Warren memorably declared at her very first Banking Committee hearing—she is basically a one-issue political figure. And that doesn't get you into the White House in this era. (OK, fine, Barack Obama first came to national attention by declaring Iraq a "dumb" war, but more on that later.) Warren's punditocratic boosters, like Jonathan Chait of New York, have tried to compensate for her one-issueness by suggesting that the issue that Warren became famous for is still, as Chait put it, "the most potent, untapped issue in American politics."

And with each passing year the causal connection between Wall Street's unprosecuted perpetrators and the terrible recession and national PTSD they set in motion has grown more distant, draining the issue of its populist potential. In 2012 when Mitt Romney promised, and then failed, to propose an alternative to Dodd-Frank, almost no one cared. Polls consistently show that while the U.S. public is still mainly concerned about the economy (although the numbers have been steadily falling), Wall Street is way down the list, behind health care, immigration, education, guns, and a host of social issues. By the time the 2016 race rolls around, nearly eight years will have passed since the financial crisis.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... me/281554/


I don't know who the Democratic nominee will be. It is probably good news for Warren that these conversations are at least coming up. The biggest obstacle the non-Clinton field have is they are unknown. So this kind of 'free' coverage/exposure is a good thing.

And I think as we are witnessing in this thread, Hillary's tenure as Sec of State and staying out of the ugly political issues that the Obama admin has been in has helped her. As the race nears, her flaws are going to start coming up more and more and her favorability will drop. Whether there is another Barack Obama in this field to surpass her is still be seen, but I would lean towards the field.

[FACT-MAN-2]

Bernie Sanders Open To 2016 Presidential Run

By Amanda Terkel Posted: 11/18/2013 10:42 am EST | Updated: 11/18/2013 12:50 pm EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/1 ... ref=topbar

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants to make sure that there is a strong progressive voice in the 2016 presidential field, and he's willing to jump in if no one else does.

"There are people in this world who, ever since they were 12 years of age, they decided they wanted to be president of the United States. That is honestly not me," Sanders told the Burlington Free Press last week. "Anyone who really, really wants to be president is slightly crazy because this is an unbelievably difficult job given the crises that this country faces today."

Nevertheless, Sanders said that there needs to be a 2016 candidate who will go after Wall Street, focus on poverty and the collapse of the middle class, address global warming and oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare -- all issues that Sanders has taken on while in the Senate.

And according to the Free Press, "Sanders says he is willing to consider making a run if no one else with progressive views similar to his ends up taking the plunge."

"Under normal times, it's fine, you have a moderate Democrat running, a moderate Republican running," Sanders said. "These are not normal times. The United States right now is in the middle of a severe crisis and you have to call it what it is."
Sanders said he would probably run as an independent.

continues ...

[FACT-MAN-2]

Elizabeth Warren Said To Be Raising No Money For The 2016 Run That Is Not Happening

By Jason Linkins
Posted: 11/18/2013 1:06 pm EST | Updated: 11/18/2013 1:32 pm EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/1 ... 96517.html

Presidential speculation in the modern era of "OMG SHINY SHINY BOUNCY BOUNCY" political reporting can be built on just about anything: wishes, dreams, Internet memes. But to actually run a campaign, you need to corral large stacks of tall dollars from rich people. I warned you that this was a pretty critical concern for anyone hedging their bets on a possible 2016 run from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and now here's Ruby Cramer, officially popping everyone's brightly-colored party balloons over at Buzzfeed this morning:

Elizabeth Warren's former national finance chair, Paul Egerman, has told several inquiring donors this month that, despite runaway speculation and a burning desire from the party's left wing, the freshman senator will not run for president in 2016.
Despite all the frenzy, Warren has said again, and again, and again that she won't be running in 2016. So why are we still harping on this? Basically, the road to 2016 is a very long one, and people need something to talk about. (Newly minted New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has also said repeatedly that he's not going to run for president in 2016, but he'll get his turn on this ferris wheel eventually.)

Of course, as the New Yorker points out, Warren could still totally change her mindand decide to run later. But the operative word is "later." And probably only if you see words like "Hillary Clinton decides not to run," followed by, "Elizabeth Warren raises a crazy amount of money."

Until then, go read Cramer's whole thing for even more very strenuous instances of people being told on no uncertain terms that they can dial back all their Warren 2016 expectations for the forseeable future. It also includes this weird quote from a fundraiser: "The geese talk to the geese. The bears talk to the bears. And the hippos talk to the hippos."

But what does the fox say?! And so forth.

[OlivierK]

I agree that the media likes to fixate on shiny objects, but that's what makes Warren a good story - she actually IS someone people would prefer to see in the White House, or at least to have a shot at the primaries.

To get the big pile of cash you need to run, you've either got to be in the pockets of the super-rich (which Warren doesn't seem to be) or have a level of public support that makes you a credible contender and potential victor. I'm not sure how you demonstrate that without a round of being the media's shiny object.

[FACT-MAN-2]

I agree that the media likes to fixate on shiny objects, but that's what makes Warren a good story - she actually IS someone people would prefer to see in the White House, or at least to have a shot at the primaries.

To get the big pile of cash you need to run, you've either got to be in the pockets of the super-rich (which Warren doesn't seem to be) or have a level of public support that makes you a credible contender and potential victor. I'm not sure how you demonstrate that without a round of being the media's shiny object.

I think that's done by generating a grass roots movement via the Internet, getting ten million people to donate $10 each, which sums up to a cool $100 million. That's not enough to finance a presidential campaign, a candidate needs about a $billion to do that. But, if she raised $100 million from grass roots donors, I'd expect she could raise the balance from much bigger donors.

Americans are so damned sick and tired of Washington's BAU I think the potential for this to occur is much greater than we tend to think. If she were to form a ticket with someone like Howard Dean or Bernie Sanders I think she'd become unstoppable.

However, it appears at this juncture that she's not going to run, so our speculations become moot.

[OlivierK]

I agree with all of that, especially the feasibility of serious grass-roots funding in the age of viral social media. But the media will still go along with that ride: when such a movement started (as it could be argued is happening with Warren) then the media treatment would be much as it is now.

I agree it seems she's not going down that road, but if she were, things would look much as they do now.

[Steve]

I agree that the media likes to fixate on shiny objects, but that's what makes Warren a good story - she actually IS someone people would prefer to see in the White House, or at least to have a shot at the primaries.

To get the big pile of cash you need to run, you've either got to be in the pockets of the super-rich (which Warren doesn't seem to be) or have a level of public support that makes you a credible contender and potential victor. I'm not sure how you demonstrate that without a round of being the media's shiny object.

It is not exactly Elizabeth Warren we want, it is people LIKE Elizabeth Warren who have a brain and are comfortable applying it. Being a politician is an excruciatingly hard job as you have to raise vast, and I do mean VAST, sums of money just to get on the arena, and then every man and his dog wants to knock you out of it. It is almost impossible to stick to thoughtful principles and remain in power. Whatever you do there will be winners and losers, so you will make enemies at every move regardless.

Within the field of banking and finance Elizabeth Warren is masterfully informed and can sort through the nuances in her sleep. So on this topic she shines like the superstar she is. But get her outside this narrow focus and I wonder how long she would last. I think she would drown in the need to raise money, just like the vast majority of politicians.

Bernie is much more rounded, and would make a much better presidential prospect, but what we need is a bunch of people like these guys that really can simply stand up and start making sense of things.

[FACT-MAN-2]

I agree with all of that, especially the feasibility of serious grass-roots funding in the age of viral social media. But the media will still go along with that ride: when such a movement started (as it could be argued is happening with Warren) then the media treatment would be much as it is now.

I agree it seems she's not going down that road, but if she were, things would look much as they do now.

We're a year-and-a-half away from any candidates declaring an actual intention to run, even though the drumbeat has started now. Warren is as qualified as any, witness a speech she gave today on the Senate floor about why we should expand Social Security. not cut it, as Pelosi and Obama have suggested be done. She's been in the Senate long enough to be familiar with all the key issues. Her bona fides only come up short in foreign policy. If GW Bush could run the show for 8 years, Warren could do it for four in her sleep.

But again, she doesn't seem to be inclined at this stage, although she's got a year-and-a-half before she would actually have to declare, so we'll see. It'll be interesting to see if any others surge to the fore in the intervening time. We can probably expect that at least a few will, including one or two that will come out of the blue.

[GT2211]

She may or may not run, but I don't think anyone expects her to do anything but deny it now. As FM stated we are a year away before people start announcing. She has a legislative agenda she is trying to fulfill. Same with Booker. He has stated he feels there is a potential bipartisan bridge in reducing punishments for non-violent drug offenders. Many see that as borrowing from Obama's playbook with his close relationship with my fmr. GOP Senator Dick Lugar who Obama worked closely with on nuclear arms. That potential bipartisanship goes away though if Republicans feel he is doing so to boost his Presidential profile.

With that said she pulled in massive amounts of money as a Senate candidate if she can show that she is a serious candidate for POTUS she won't have any issues raising money.

[GT2211]

WAPO announces Paul Ryan is in the race. Okay technically that isn't what they say. They instead wrote an article about Paul Ryan's war on poverty that discussed how he wanted to make it a core issue in 2012 but it was overlooked by out of touch privileged Mittens. Also that he has been traveling around the country meeting with charities, Iowa politicians, and is going to give a hard look at running for POTUS. The article quickly glosses over that Paul Ryan has not yet released any actual, specific policies that would help.

While I guess there is some very brief insight into the fact that Paul Ryan is going to try and portray himself as caring for the poor and tap into the religious inner-city community, I still think this article is an example of everything that is wrong with modern day journalism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... ml?hpid=z4