2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumProgressives are Looking for a New Vision to Take On Corporate-Dominated Big Money Politics
Progressives are looking for a new vision to take on corporate-dominated and big money politics, but who will stand up?- Jon Queally, staff writer
Politico reports that Wall Street is freaking out over the idea of a populist contender for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2016.
(Photo: Christopher Gregory/The New York Times/Redux TNR)
With the consummate insider Hillary Clintona former First Lady, US Senator and Secretary of Stateonce again seen in establishment circles as the "inevitable" choice to lead the party, The Hill says the left of the Democratic base wants a strong primary challenger in order to highlight Clinton's corporate-friendly, Wall Street-appeasing, and military hawkish instincts.
Though critics are sure to note the possible premature nature of the debateit's still 2013, by the waythe uptick in the conversation this week was spawned by a feature-length article in the New Republic on Monday, titled Hillary's Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren, in which journalist Noah Scheiber paints of a scenario in which the freshman senator from Massachusetts, championed for her tough positions on Wall Street and well-received populist message, rises to challenge the party's pro-corporate standard-bearer.
In many ways, the dynamics Scheiber describes are less about about a Clinton vs. Warren showdown, but the fundamental split in the Democratic Party that only the intransigence and obstructionism of the Republican Party has kept at bay. In essences, writes Scheiber, there are two sides of the party (emphasis added):
On the other side is a group of Democratic elites associated with the Clinton era who, though they may have moved somewhat leftward in response to the recessionhappily supporting economic stimulus and generous unemployment benefitsstill fundamentally believe the economy functions best with a large, powerful, highly complex financial sector. Many members of this group have either made or raised enormous amounts of cash on Wall Street. They were deeply influential in limiting the reach of Dodd-Frank, the financial reform measure Obama signed in July of 2010.
Picking up on the story, The Hill reached out to several prominent progressive DC groups to gauge their thoughts on a primary challenge from Clinton's left, and found that most worried about her inability to genuinely inhabit the anti-Wall Street, populist mood that has become a central tenet in an era of massive income and economic inequality. Not only did the groups cite economic disparity as one of the biggest problems facing the nation, it is also a galvanizing political issue for the left. From The Hill:
Influential progressives wonder whether someone who accepted such a large sum from one of Wall Streets biggest investment firms could be expected to hold corporate executives accountable if elected president.
They also wonder how aggressively shed call for addressing income inequality, which many see as one of the biggest economic problems facing the nation.
If Hillary has no opposition, if she has a coronation instead, that debate doesnt happen, said Roger Hickey, co-director of Campaign for Americas Future.
Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, a liberal grassroots advocacy group, said the Democratic Party would benefit from a competitive presidential primary in 2016.
The issue of income inequality is vital, and Hillary Clinton has not always had the right position, he said. Hillary has changed a lot, and shes grown a lot. I think this is a candidate who has evolved in a number of important ways.
She has some heavy lifting to do to show shes not in the pocket of banks and a candidate of the 1 percent. Thats a more open question, he added.
Phrasing it in a question, consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader put it this way in his weekend column at Common Dreams: "Does the future of our country benefit from Hillary, another Clinton, another politician almost indistinguishable from Barack Obamas militaristic, corporatist policies garnished by big money donors from Wall Street and other plutocratic canyons?"
The answer from Nader is an emphatic 'No.' He writes:
Full Medicare for all, cracking down on corporate abuses, a fairer tax system, a broad public works program, a living wage, access to justice and citizen empowerment, clean election practices, and pulling back on the expensive, boomeranging Empire to come home to Americas necessities and legitimate hopes are some examples of what the people want.
At Politico meanwhile, the focus on Tuesday was on the possibility of Clinton's challenge coming from Sen. Warren and how Wall Street was simmering with consternation over the prospect. As Ben White and Maggie Haberman report:
The nightmare scenario for banks is to hear these arguments from a candidate on the far left and on the far right, said Jaret Seiberg, a financial services industry analyst at Guggenheim Partners. Suddenly you have Elizabeth Warren screaming about too big to fail on one side and Rand Paul screaming about it on the other side and then candidates in the middle are forced to weigh in.
A spokesperson for Warren declined to comment on whether she would consider a presidential bid against Clinton, though Warren has previously said she has no plans to run. People close to Warren note that she signed a letter from female Democratic senators urging Clinton to run in 2016. And Warren associates, mindful of any appearance of creating the narrative of a Warren-for-president campaign, have corresponded with Clinton associates to stress that they didnt fuel the New Republic story by Noam Scheiber.
Yet the stakes for Wall Street and corporate America of a Warren campaign and possible victory are hard to overstate.
_________________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Lice
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/12
Nay
(12,051 posts)On one side is a majority of Democratic voters, who are angrier, more disaffected, and altogether more populist than theyve been in years. They are more attuned to income inequality than before the Obama presidency and more supportive of Social Security and Medicare. Theyve grown fonder of regulation and more skeptical of big business. A recent Pew poll showed that voters under 30who skew overwhelmingly Democraticview socialism more favorably than capitalism. Above all, Democrats are increasingly hostile to Wall Street and believe the government should rein it in.
On the other side is a group of Democratic elites associated with the Clinton era who, though they may have moved somewhat leftward in response to the recessionhappily supporting economic stimulus and generous unemployment benefitsstill fundamentally believe the economy functions best with a large, powerful, highly complex financial sector. Many members of this group have either made or raised enormous amounts of cash on Wall Street. They were deeply influential in limiting the reach of Dodd-Frank, the financial reform measure Obama signed in July of 2010.
There are a lot of Democrats who realize that 'business as usual' simply isn't solving our problems -- it is making them worse. Now, after President Obama has shown that his sympathies are with the Democrats in the second paragraph, Hillary Clinton will have one hell of a hard time convincing anyone that she is actually a Democrat from the first paragraph. She has always been fairly corporate, and IMHO, will never be able to convince anyone otherwise because of our experience with Obama.
This leaves the Democratic Party in a real quandary -- who is there, really, to nominate besides Hillary? She's out there by herself. I doubt Warren will run; if I were she, I'd wait a cycle, get experience, build a following. There don't seem to be any credible challengers. Depending on how much more demoralized progressive Democrats get before 2016, she actually may not even win.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and the fact that his mission was to help the already rich. I don't see it that way at all. I also don't see any similarities between Obama and Hillary. It's been said here and other places often enough that they are both of the same cloth.
No. I believe Obama is a good person and is trying his best to improve the lives of people against some really high odds. I think he is all about working for the good of all and not working for his own ego and his own interests.
The Clintons are the exact opposite: their interests are for themselves and how they can broker more power for their little kingdom. Their ideas are far closer to the Republican's than of Democrats. They have speeches that mean nothing, ultimately. Pretty words and empty deliveries. They are very very deft at suckering in people.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)like PBO to me. While I can not claim to know about his "goodness" as a person, I do acknowledge that he is more pro Corporate than pro people.
Nay
(12,051 posts)he's way off base when it comes to the NSA spying, the SS commission, his adoration of Larry Summers, etc. If he's truly convinced he's doing good things for the average person, then I believe he has been misled or has deluded himself.
We all KNOW the Pubs don't give a shit about the average person; we know they are obstructionist; what we wished for was someone that could articulate our position and put it out there, not someone who seems to continuously give away chunks of our rights. We'll have to disagree about Obama's performance.