It's Elizabeth Warren's Party. Barack Obama Is Just Living in It.

[kpete]

POLITICS It's Elizabeth Warren's Party. Barack Obama Is Just Living in It.

Any doubts about whether the Democratic Party would embrace Warren's economic populism can now be put to rest.

"The two big themes coming out of President Obama's speech are economic populism and a new willingness to fight. President Obama is basically taking steps to sound more and more like Elizabeth Warren," says Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, an outside group that backed Warren's Senate campaign.

The party has shifted noticeably to the left on economic issues, said Neera Tanden, the president of the center-left Center for American Progress. "Economic populism is a uniting force in the Democratic Party and progressive movement, and will help draw a contrast with Republicans in 2014 and future cycles," she said.

What's changed? Part of it is that Obama finally realized Republicans were unlikely to be very fruitful negotiating partners, freeing him to speak his mind without fear of damaging bipartisan deal-making. Meanwhile, macro-economic trends toward greater inequality continue apace, as Democratic-leaning demographic groups expand in size and voting power.



......

MORE:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/it-s-elizabeth-warren-s-party-barack-obama-is-just-living-in-it-20140204

[frazzled]

1. Yeah, sure.

Except Barack Obama was doing income inequality on the South Side of Chicago more than a decade before Elizabeth Warren even stopped being a Republican and worrying about "markets." He was also talking about it well before she ever got elected.

I think we'll let the history books decide whose party it was.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

25. +1

Exactly! People need to be reminded of the fact that Elizabeth Warren was a registered Republican throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, and even voted for Reagan and Bush. She can't claim that the Republican Party has changed THAT much since then, because their entire economic policy today is the same one she voted for numerous times years ago.

[Armstead]

63. oh yes, now its time to smear her. goody goody

so what if she was a Republican 20 years ago?

if she evolved good for her.

[ananda]

69. Yeah, and Reagan was liberal Democrat before ..

.. he decided to become anti-union and switch sides.

Reagan devolved; Warren evolved. Good for her!

[closeupready]

75. I voted for Bush in 2000, also. Yet,

I'm on the more liberal end of most issues, even when compared with other members of this website.

People change. Times change. Society changes.

[NCTraveler]

92. So many ways to write an article like this without making it crap.

Using the two of them like this is nothing but divisive and meant to stir the pot. I am a huge fan of Warren. Obama has disappointed me in some areas and been great in others. You hit it out of the park with this one: "


Except Barack Obama was doing income inequality on the South Side of Chicago more than a decade before Elizabeth Warren even stopped being a Republican and worrying about "markets." He was also talking about it well before she ever got elected."

[SidDithers]

2. Adam Green. LOL...

boldprogressives.org exists for one reason and one reason only - put money into Adam Green's pocket.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/07/adam-greens-dishonest-fundraising-attack-meets-obamas-adult-debt-conversation/

http://theobamadiary.com/2011/07/15/here-we-go-again-2/

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00458000&cycle=2012



~ $4 million spent

~ $2 million on salaries
~ $500K on Administration
~ $300K on Media
~ $400K on Research


$48K to Federal Candidates


Every time Obama opens his mouth, PCCC sends out a fundraising letter.



Sid

[joshcryer]

4. that shit should be illegal

insane

[Cha]

14. 'Zactly what I said in fewer words, downthread.. Thank

you for this in-depth info on "Bold Progressives Sid!

I figured it out for myself without all this from Joy Reid.. but, this is brilliant!

Tailor-made for those with ODS and not likely to investigate anything AG writes.

[sabrina 1]

18. PCCC is one of the most effective PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC Organizations around today. I will

happily donate to them for the work they do. Right Wingers HATE Them and that's good enough for me. We WANT our Progressive Organizations to have the money they need to fight the takeover of this government by Corporate interests.

Very telling that you expect Progressive Orgs to starve. We have finally learned, and so has PCCC, it is going to take MONEY to FIGHT MONEY and we Progressive Dems have been wasting it for a long time. NOW we have finally learned.

I LOVE PCCC. Got any idea of the work they have done for Democrats? No? Didn't think so.

Trust me, Dems love PCCC and if all you have is that they have succeeded in making money, and they are worth every dime unlike some of the 'pacs' who put OUR money behind Corporate morons, PCCC works for the people and the people are more happy with what they have accomplished than they are with Congress right now.

Nice try, but you need to get another tactic to try to turn people off Liberal organizations and authors, We really are not that easily influenced.

[SidDithers]

20. Then I hope you donate lots and lots of money to PCCC...

and do so with the knowledge that only about 12% of the money you're giving is going to candidates, and the rest is being used pay for salaries, benefits, technology stipends, rent stipends, travel expenses, $500 a month at the Corner Bakery for "meals", $7500 a month for their website, and various other necessary expenses.

Oh, and thousands a month in fundraising expenses - to raise more money to pay for all of the above.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

23. Their website is awesome. For the work they do for Progressive Democratic causes

they are not being paid enough. Here's how I look at where I spend money from now on. What are they doing to advance Progressive causes? If I donate to the DNC, I am told 'your ideas are retarded' and candidates I want the money to go to, eg, Buono in NJ, are tossed aside and the Dem Party endorses the REPUBLICAN. Any idea how much money our corporate backed Congresspeople get, after the are finished serving the Corporations they really work for? PCCC is NOT destroying the Public Schools, they are NOT pushing cuts to SS, they are NOT supporting drone wars, voting for cuts to food stamps for the most vulnerable people.

I am very happy to donate to those who are doing what Progressive Dems want them to do, and the very fact that they ARE now earning some money demonstrates how disillusioned Democrats are in general. Because we know there is no 'bi-partisanship' in PCCC. No 'compromise with the far right'.

Things are changing here. I can see why PCCC is a threat to the Corporate interests that have controlled things UP TO NOW. They had Bush to help them. But it's been five years now and we who supported them with loads of money (where did it go, to Third Way Candidates OVER progressive candidates every time) have found a more effective way to spend our money.

I love that it is pissing off all the 'right' people that PCCC has managed to do what they've been doing for all this time, take away some of that money they used to screw Democratic voters with.

And PCCC is not the ONLY Progressive Democratic organization that is now attracting more and more Democrats to get the kind of candidates WE WANT. This is what we need. This is how we will 'change' the party.

Thanks for reminding to donate some money to them.

[SidDithers]

47. ROFL...

Priceless.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

51. Thanks. Always happy to keep you informed about exciting Progressive Democratic news.

[SidDithers]

53. And I'm happy to inform everyone else how wrong you are...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

60. LOL! Now that is funny. Considering that most DUers are full supporters of PCCC. But knock yourself

out, it's fun to watch you trying to trash a Progressive Democratic Organization on a Progressive Democratic Forum. Very funny.

[SidDithers]

64. "most DUers are full supporters of PCCC"...

there you go, making shit up again.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

76. I absolutely loved what PCCC did to expose a Dem's alliance to the Third Way 'think tank'.

She had to detach herself, because Third Way candidates have become so toxic to voters now, from the group publicly showing how effective these Progressive organizations have become. Corporate funded candidates are going to have face that kind of exposure from now on.

And that is why the 'status quo corporate interests' are desperately trying to smear them. Which only makes them MORE likely to get MORE money to rid this government of the corporate money that has polluted it.

PCCC now has over one MILLION members and growing every day, these are Progressive Dems, DUers included, and that's just PCCC. I love that there are now so many of them, that they are getting funding from the voters rather than that money going to back Third Way candidates.

And you can tell how successful they are on behalf of Progressives by the people who hate them:

[SidDithers]

80. Which has nothing to do with your ridiculous, unverifiable claim...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

89. Your ridiculous claim that ONLY Liberal activist groups should not have money

is pretty stunning frankly. Liberals have become very 'pragmatic' to use an overused word, generally directed AT Liberals for NOT being pragmatic. As I said, PCCC is supported AND hated by all the right people.

All that money that used to end up backing Third Way Corporate Candidates, will now be going to Progressive Candidates.

[SidDithers]

93. No. Try to focus. Your Gish Gallop won't work with me...

My "ridiculous" claim is that PCCC spent ~ $4 million during the 2012 election cycle, and more than half of that was on salaries that they paid to themselves.

Of course, my "ridiculous" claim is supported by their FEC filings.

Your "ridiculous claim" was that "most DUers are full supporters of PCCC".

And, of course, your "ridiculous" claim is completely unsupported.

What's really hilarious is that, even after being given the link to PCCC's detailed expenditures at opensecrets, you still think that the money they're raising is going to "Progressive Candidates".

Sid

[merrily]

22. AFAIK, most politicians, etc. are doing a great job of putting money in rich people's pockets.

[struggle4progress]

50. +

[dionysus]

87. ah, another poutrage profiteer... along the lines of greenwald and hamsher...

[BeyondGeography]

3. Whatthefuckever

[ProSense]

5. Prediction:

But the speech Obama gave last week to a similar joint session of Congress felt very different. His 2014 State of the Union address brushed over deficit reduction quickly before getting onto the main event: a pledge to create "opportunity for all," infused with the themes that Warren rode to Washington a little over a year ago.

After that speech, any doubt about whether the Democratic Party would embrace economic populism can now be put to rest. The party is united behind an agenda that puts economic inequality front-and-center, and they think voters will reward them for it. Warren did not move the needle alone, and perhaps was just a leading indicator of these changing winds, but her once-insurgent message has now become mainstream in the party, albeit with some edges sanded off.

"The two big themes coming out of President Obama's speech are economic populism and a new willingness to fight. President Obama is basically taking steps to sound more and more like Elizabeth Warren," says Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, an outside group that backed Warren's Senate campaign.

...The OP is going to be rec'd by everyone who agreed that the speech was a "festival of lies."

[rhett o rick]

8. Festival of lies might be a little strong. But I would hope you agree that it

certainly was a festival of rhetoric. Why didnt he mention the TPP? He certainly spoke around it.

[ProSense]

9. Don't "hope"

[rhett o rick]

67. Do you know what rhetoric is?

[bobduca]

71. Only studied the logical fallacies chapter

of "Controlling teh internet" Phoenix Online course.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. And there you are with the big 'ol Elizabeth Warren on your sig

and SHE didn't find it a Festival of Lies OR "A Festival of Rhetoric"....did she? I find that funny as HELL

Isn't it ironic???

[rhett o rick]

70. Ahh the ROLF Group where loyalty means more than principles. nm

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. Principles...right sure you do....

do they include fibbing?

[Cha]

16. And, ..

Tailor-made for those with ODS and not likely to investigate anything AG writes.

[ProSense]

17. Clickbait headline

"Tailor-made for those with ODS and not likely to investigate anything AG writes."

Read the last three paragraphs. It's all about duping them into buying into the Democratic message. In summary:

Pelosi and other members pointed to priority legislation such as raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits, as well as a wish list of ideas like universal prekindergarten, greater college affordability, paid sick leave for workers, a gender pay-equity law, and an updated voting rights act....The message also takes some of the edge off of Warren's more confrontational rhetoric...While Warren's message is aimed at the failings of the super wealthy, the "opportunity" message turns the lens around and offers to give a "ladder of opportunity" for people to move into higher socioeconomic strata. And that's something that broad swaths of the party seem ready to embrace. From purple-state governors to red-state senators such as Arkansas' Mark Pryor, many Democrats have lined up to support a hike in the minimum wage ahead of tough reelection battles....None of this necessarily makes Warren herself the leader of the party. But ideas are often more powerful than people, and there's little doubt that the ones she helped elevate are now driving the party.

Say what?

[rhett o rick]

6. I have a problem with this statement: "What's changed? Part of it is that Obama finally realized

Republicans were unlikely to be very fruitful negotiating partners, freeing him to speak his mind without fear of damaging bipartisan deal-making." I doubt that. He is a very smart man. So what's another possible reason.

Pres Obama started embracing conservatives the day of his inauguration. I have asked why he did that and the only response I can get from the Loyalists is that 1. He wants to keep his enemy close, or 2. he can make them do his bidding even though they have Conservative ideologies.

So the question still stands, why does Pres Obama appoint so many conservatives? Occam might tell us to look at the simplest explanation first. President Obama is a conservative and believes in the conservative ideology, at least in the areas of economy, defense, and intelligence agencies.

[ProSense]

10. This is

"Pres Obama started embracing conservatives the day of his inauguration. I have asked why he did that and the only response I can get from the Loyalists is that 1. He wants to keep his enemy close, or 2. he can make them do his bidding even though they have Conservative ideologies. "

...fact-free nonsense perpetuated by those who spin everything the President does that they can. When they can't, they ignore his actions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024450902
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024448040

[rhett o rick]

13. Not that you will respond with a straight answer, but " the question still stands, why does Pres

Obama appoint so many conservatives?" The simplest answer is that he supports their ideologies.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. "Embracing Conservatives" my Great Aunt Fanny!

It burnsssss!



http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

[rhett o rick]

74. Cant you make a statement? You guys seem to rely on pictures. Do you deny

that Obama has appointed a shit load of conservatives?

The status quo is killing us and some seem oblivious.

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. That picture is worth a THOUSAND words....

In fact its worth thousands of them....they are all right there for you to see for yourself....(but you can go around deluded if you want to)..http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/barack_obama.htm

Here is your "status quo"

[rhett o rick]

86. No this is your status quo that you are so proud of.

And it's getting worse every day.

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. So who YOU got that can fix all that overnight?

hmmmmmmmm...???

Who DO you have with the magic wand that can make the Republicans play ball?


hmmmmm???


You conveniently forgot about THAT status quo!!

[rhett o rick]

90. So your changing your argument from "the status quo is just all right with me" to "we are helpless

to change it." I would like someone that wasnt in bed with the major corporations and trying to fast track thru an agreement that will kill more American jobs. I wouldnt settle for someone that can go to Goldman-Sachs and do a quick soft-shoe for some pieces of gold.

I guess loyalty is more important than feeding hungry American children.

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. that was never MY argument...that was the words YOU decided to put into my mouth...

not quite the same.

In fact in the next Election I expect to vote for Hillary Clinton who according to my graph is even more LEFT Than President Obama...

Okay now...put up or shut up....who do YOU have that can do better? Who do you have that can make the Republicans play ball?

Cause unless you can also guarantee more Dems in the House in the Midterms... (even those dems you hate which seems to be most of them)...you got NADA.

We don't have status quo by the way...we have had Progress....or are you in utter denial about that FACT!

[merrily]

24. Way before his inauguration.

I used to accept all the excuses for why he was absent or voting present on many of the more controversial tough issues from the Illiniois Senate until his election. Did I say accept? Hell I made those excuses myself when the subject came up.

He even tried to disavow a state questionnaire with liberal responses that he signed on the ground that an aide had filled it out. The man's a lawyer, but he did not read something that voters were going to judge him on when he ran for the first time?

Daschle was a top campaign advisor; and he's no liberal. Rahm Emanuel was his first appointment. He seems to have nothing but contempt for liberals. Gates, Geithner, the list goes on and on. The DU debate over whether he's a liberal is laughable.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. And I am about to laugh my ass off at this assertion that he is not....see here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

[merrily]

35. I don't know which of us will laugh harder. Everything is relative.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. Go see for yourself....the issues are all laid out for you right there

all his positions and votes and speeches for you to see for yourself...

Nothing just "relative" about it...FACTS are FACTS.

[bobduca]

78. A GIF with comic sans wins the internet today!

Not the political compass crap again...

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. Yeah.....you got something else that puts EVERY vote and EVERY statemen

right there for you to see and takes ALL of that into consideration...

Go look at the link...its much much more than a GIF my friend...

[RC]

79. +1000!!1!!11!!

The last paragraph! And people wonder why we are so slow in recovering from the bu$h recession.

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. Obama "finally realized"???

I think there is something you need to "finally realize"



http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/barack_obama.htm

[Whisp]

7. It's about Obama knowing what to do with timing

not 'finally realizing' anything.

another crap article.

[Cha]

12. Yeah, Adam Green has come up with

some real bull$hit over the years. No surprise his name is attached to this.

[sabrina 1]

21. Such as? PCCC is a wonderful, PROGRESSIVE organization and extremely effective.

What BS has Adam Green come up with?

[Cha]

11. Bullshit.. Adam Green is a divisive profiteer..

I've been on to his game for a long time.

I appreciate Senator Warren as I do President Barack Obama.

[sabrina 1]

61. You must have missed my question. What 'bs' has Green been up to other than promoting Progressive

candidates and helping get REAL progressive candidates elected?

[blkmusclmachine]

15. Uh-oh. 11-dimensional chess dictates that the Party bends for Obama, and not the other way around.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. Oh you think so...who is bending?

http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

[phleshdef]

19. "President Obama is basically taking steps to sound more and more like Elizabeth Warren" = bullshit

Barack Obama has talked about this same stuff in these same words for years, going all the way back to being a Senator just running for the primary.

Elizabeth Warren is an awesome person and an awesome messenger. But christ, don't try to rewrite history. Obama has been giving speeches and interview answers and debate answers that echo economic populist sentiments and bringing up income equality and equal pay for equal work and whatever else you can throw in there for YEARS.

Lets also not forget that Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama are FRIENDS and that it was Barack Obama who elevated Elizabeth Warren in the first place.

[JoePhilly]

65. Yea, but Putn made Obama put Warren in that position ... he didn't really want to do it.

[sendero]

66. He's talked it..

... but he hasn't DONE much of anything about it.

Maybe his walk will more closely align with his perpetually-PROGRESSIVE talk.

Naw, not going to happen.

[stevenleser]

26. LMAO - Does anyone actually buy this?

[merrily]

30. What difference would it make if they were buying it?

It's not as though the 2016 primary is going to be Warren v. Obama.

He's head of the party now. She has said she never wants to be. He campaigned for her.

Why gin up some imaginary contest between them?

[merrily]

27. Why is this even Obama vs. Warren? They're not running against each other.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. Some seem to hilariously think so!

[merrily]

36. Well the writer of the article does, but

that doesn't mean we all have to accept the premise, does it?

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. I certainly don't.....but for some I am not so sure!

[merrily]

42. Just to clarify, by writer of the article, I meant the National Journal writer, not

the OP.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. and???

I have no idea where this is going....

[merrily]

52. I simply did not want my statement to be construed as

referrring to kpete. I wanted to make clear that I was not criticizing him or her. That is all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. okay....

[merrily]

39. BTW, editor in chief of the National Journal is Ron Fournier.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. and that means what?

[merrily]

44. It means nothing good.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/07/22/the-ap-has-a-ron-fournier-problem/144113


The Journal used to lean left. Everyone was bought out a few years ago and Fournier was made editor in chief.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. I never gave it any credibility from the start no matter who wrote it...

[merrily]

56. No matter where it appeared, it stands on its own.

But, I think it's useful to know about the National Journal and Ron Fournier in general. For one thing, the NJ and Washington Week have an agreement that that show's panel will always include someone from the National Journal. So, even if I agree with something from the reincarnated NJ at first blush, I'd think again.

For one thing, why buy a leftist outlet and buy everyone off and change staff? Why not just start your own rightist rag? Maybe there were good reasons, but I think there are good reasons to be suspicious.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. okay....

[merrily]

59. Okay....

[Drunken Irishman]

54. Because progressives think they tear down the President and still win...

Progressives are good at a lot of things - they're rarely good at winning, tho.

[merrily]

57. Tearing down the President, as you put it, is very different from this, though.

I have no compunction whatever about criticizing Obama. (Then again, I am not a progressive, so maybe my view on that is not relevant to what you said.) I do, however, think buying into the frame the writer of the article hands us is a mistake. It's easy to do, but still a mistake, IMO.

BTW, for whatever it's worth, I don't think the writer who wrote the piece is a progressive. I don't mean kpete. I mean the author of the article linked in the OP. Actually, I don't know that writer, but I know the National Journal is not progressive

[Rex]

34. Wow you sure pissed off the faithful!

Well...not you, but funny how they kill the messenger! Wow, tough crowd.

I guess I better not say I want Hillary for POTUS in 2016...oops...

[bobduca]

68. LOL

I only see 7 replies on this thread.

[treestar]

41. People need to quit using Elizabeth Warren to divide Democrats

and to demonize the President. It's stupid.

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. they need to quit trying to divide us period...its unproductive...

[frazzled]

77. Exactly

I like Elizabeth Warren, so this isn't about bashing her, but face it: she's the cipher being used to create some kind of cudgel with which to whack other Democrats.

It's nothing that's merited at this point, which is why she is able to be used in this way. I actually feel sorry for her, because she'll end up being overthrown for the next cipher here within a few years.

[underthematrix]

45. I love Sen. Elizabeth Warren but I would not vote to make her President

[Rex]

49. I would.

nt.

[longship]

62. She's already said she's not interested.

No worries.

[ProSense]

72. Let me

grab this from the OP article:

And that's something that broad swaths of the party seem ready to embrace. From purple-state governors to red-state senators such as Arkansas' Mark Pryor, many Democrats have lined up to support a hike in the minimum wage ahead of tough reelection battles. The logic isn't too hard to see: Despite business group's objections, it's an idea 71 percent of Americans support, according to a December National Journal poll.

Guess Pryor changed his mind:

Embattled Arkansas Democrat Opposes Federal Minimum Wage Hike: ‘It’s Too Much, Too Fast’http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024453668

[Armstead]

81. My guess is he may find himself in an all-to-familiar dilemma

I would guess that among most average-to-low income people in his state, a majority would support a hike in the minimum wage.

But among the business owners -- from Wal Mart to smaller businesses -- who can give him the money, it is not popular.

So Pryor has a familiar dilemma in today's f'd up political climate. Whose stance and interests should he support? Those who would bring him votes or those who can give him the big bucks that campaigning requires these days? (Including money to head off opposition from the right wing GOP machine.)

Its a shame politicians have to make such devils bargains these days.

[mstinamotorcity2]

73. Can't we just say??

The coffee been brewing and finally people are awaking to the aroma of Inequality!!!!