General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm getting that Obama vibe from the Warren direction
Warren is appealing to the middle class on Wall Street, just as Obama promised health care. She is the unexpected candidate, not the one groomed by the elite. She is bourne aloft by the voice of the people, signaling hope and change. As a woman, she could be the first woman President. In embodying that ideal, she would be tbe medium that is the message. She could even pull off a female "Kennedy".
The Obama administration has been conservative enough that someone could run a change campaign in contrast to it - especially with the current GoP do-nothing(-but-stupid) Congress. The apathy that has haunted recent elections should show this.
I am not a Warrenista. I've been waiting for her to show a deeper awareness of social issues that affect people who have been pushed out of the middle class. She is laser focused on what she is laser focused on. Bernie is much closer to my scale of values.
But I think Warren is the best chance for the Dems to win. But if, and only if, Hillary throws the money she has soaked up and her unqualified support behind her. A Warren/ Clinton ticket might even work. Warren should still get top billing, though. Hillary might have seniority, but the enthusiasm and the votes will go to Warren..
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)That would be, taking money from corporations and bankers and wall street and such. Gasp! Sorry, Lizzie will have to rely on her supporters to come up with the billion dollars it is going to take to run for Prez.
Response to daredtowork (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Sanders 2016!
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I don't see him winning, though. :-/
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I don't recall people begging Obama to run. WarrenWarren's appeal is even that much more powerful.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I would guess that behind the scenes she probably shares many of the same social values we have.
But I think she's also conscious of how the corporate media and elites have divided our country through emphasizing social issues as being "the important issues" in the hopes of having us neglecting the economic and class issues that so deeply affect all of us, and that the 1% want to keep exploiting us with.
I think she understands that if she takes strong stances on social issues now, that this is what the media will focus on in their discussions of her as a politician and focus their questions on, in an effort to pigeonhole her and divide any grass roots support of her.
She's staying focused on the issues that no one else who fear the financial contribution and other backlashes that they will get if they start taking stances against the interests of their contributors. It is these issues that will separate her from so many others as a unique candidate that is working for all of us, and not just Democrats. I think she knows if she runs nationally, she'll need to appeal across the aisle, but she doesn't want to go the corporatist route that so many that are depicted as "moderate" are, who mostly are corporate shills that aren't staunch in their support on social issues.
She has the benefit as a woman candidate that she could help debates, etc. focus more on issues, if her main rival is Hillary Clinton, since the media, etc. won't be as able to pose "identity politics" questions they could like they did in last election when they had two such main candidates running as a person of color, and as a woman. That will make it that much harder for the press, etc. to pigeon hole her too.
Bernie Sanders would be great from my point of view, but I think he's have a harder time getting elected, since he's already given himself the label of being a socialist, which some will use as an expletive in characterizing him in the coming election in efforts of distracting us from what he really stands for. He will have every Friday Thom Hartmann show gone over with a fine toothed comb to find ammunition on the part of the right to try to push him in to a corner.
I'm thinking though that Warren will lose a lot of the support she gets if she aligns herself with Hillary though. I'm not sure that Hillary would get in to a campaign where she would be second fiddle to try and get Warren elected either.
Personally, I'd like her to maybe have someone like Jeff Merkley as her running mate, and make my button that I got from his campaign event that much more valuable in 2016!
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I get wary about "reading between the lines", though - politicians often stay vague in the hope everyone will interpret their own way while the politician cashes in on all their votes.
But as my OP states, I think Warren has the ground game if we're just talking about who can win - and she's holding the same ball Obama was circa 2007. Perhaps a better one.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and taking far more political risks on doing the right things on issues surrounding them than other politicians...
So, I'm more willing to believe that she's being vague in our interests than vague in the interests of protecting financial contributions, etc. that other politicians are known to do, that ultimately work against us, the majority of American people.
I'd like to get to the day that we don't have politicians having to play so many games and when they can be more honest with us about what they are about, and that a real free press will pick up on those who are, and really help those that are decent politicians come off as such to the public. But we need to change some rules before that will happen and have to live with many unpleasant realities of how to get from here to there until then. I do believe that Warren in charge would provide us with the best hope for that outcome at some point.