Watch Out What You Wish For (re: Elizabeth Warren)

[Playinghardball]

n 1896, Rep. William Jennings Bryan from Nebraska won the Democratic presidential nomination by forcefully arguing against the gold standard at the national convention.

Division and dissatisfaction are what led to the Democrats’ surprise presidential pick. Struggling to make ends meet in the weak economy that had not yet recovered from the 1893 depression, many were displeased with Democratic President Grover Cleveland’s response to the crisis.

The University of Virginia’s Miller Center adeptly explains the politics this way:

Cleveland's most forceful response to the depression was to blame the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, passed during the [Republican] Harrison administration, for the nation's economic troubles. … In successfully calling for repeal of the Purchase Act, Cleveland split the Democratic Party down the middle. He lost the support of western and southern Democrats, who thereafter looked upon Cleveland as more Republican than the Republicans. ... Between 1894 and 1896, Cleveland authorized four new government bonds to raise enough gold to prevent the government from defaulting on its international obligations. He was forced to turn to investment banker J. P. Morgan to support the bonds. In relying on Morgan, Cleveland was derided for allying with powerful Wall Street interests instead of helping the average American. The President, however, felt that he had no choice but to replenish the country's gold reserves.

The question now is would progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, be able to do something similar to Bryan in 2016? Could she win the Democratic nomination, besting the New York money interests who have close ties to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?
One of the members of the liberal “Gamechanger Salon” suggested such a result would be desirable: “The establishment Dems need to be punished, and the best way for that to happen is for Warren to beat Hillary in the primary on a populist message.”

It’s no surprise that this wrestling is going on inside the party. As the recent Pew study reveals, both parties have factions that want to move in opposite directions on policy.

Beyond that, Warren has long been popular among those who distrust Wall Street and are frustrated that the recovery has not benefited most of the nation. And with her vote last week against President Barack Obama's request to arm Syrian rebels, she is even more likely to gain “credibility as the standard bearer of the party’s liberal wing,” as the Washington Post's Greg Sargent put it.

More here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/lara-brown/2014/09/25/hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren-progressives-watch-what-you-wish-for

[elleng]

1. It doesn't matter.

Unless the House goes Dem, and Dems gain power and knock out mcturtle in the Senate, virtually nothing will change, whichever Dem runs and wins POTUS.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. It matters if Repubs take the senate.

Then the math changes dramatically, and many on the left will grit their teeth and swivel centerward to simply work to ensure that no Republican can win the WH.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I would have chosen the last paragraph as one of the more important ones in that post

since it's the one that finally gets around to showing why the author thinks we need to be careful.

While Hillary Clinton’s “don’t stop thinking about ... Bill Clinton’s presidency” message may prove tiresome and insufficient for victory if the voters again opt for “change,” it should not go unnoticed that the last three presidential nominees from Massachusetts have all lost. Democrats in 1896 may not have kept the presidency, but they surely would have had a better chance against McKinley had they chosen Sen. David Hill of New York as their nominee over Bryan. In short, the lesson for Democrats is to be careful what you wish for.

Ie, that Massachusetts candidates have lost a lot lately. While I'm dubious that that's anything more than statistical noise, Warren isn't your typical 'Baaahhstan Brahmin', but a daughter of Oklahoma who simply wound up living out east as a result of her career path.

But the 'Warren Wing' isn't likely to wind up behind Warren herself anyway, given her promise to her constituents. They may end up behind Sanders in a primary.

[TheNutcracker]

3. Keystone Pipeline and Monsanta GMO speech also hurt Hillary

And yes, there is Wall Street and now the hawks she bowed to.

[Romulox]

5. Apparently our author was a W. Clinton appointee. Quelle surprise! nt

[LawDeeDah]

6. If you see one, or a few, there are much more, like termites.

Gnawing away at what was left behind to put into the richest pockets.

Bill Clinton on Inversions: ‘This Is Their Money’
As many Democrats attack companies that take advantage of corporate tax inversions, former President Bill Clinton expressed sympathy for them.

“Like it or not, this inversion, this is their money,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview during the Clinton Global Initiative in New York.

When asked whether inversions — the practice of American companies acquiring a small overseas rival and reincorporating abroad to lower their tax bills — are unpatriotic, as many critics say, Mr. Clinton said that publicly traded companies, in particular, “feel duty bound to pay the lowest taxes they can pay.”

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/09/23/?entry=476

[brooklynite]

7. Warren can't POSSIBLY repeat the Bryan result...because she's not running

Oh, and she supports Hillary Clinton.