Elizabeth Warren
Related: About this forumHillary's Only Hope To Tame Worst Habits: A Real Primary Challenge -Preferably From Elizabeth Warren
~snip~
The obvious challenger, the 1 with a true chance to sharpen Hillary’s candidacy if not derail it totally, is Elizabeth Warren. What we learned this week, by way of the New York Instances and Connected Press, is that Clinton deliberately set up a private e-mail method to use for all of public small business she conducted as the nation’s chief foreign policy officer. She did so despite explicit rules prohibiting that behavior. When asked to turn over documents to the State Division, her aides combed by means of and turned over thousands of pages. What was held back? Or altered? Or erased? We have no thought. And with every single passing day, suspicions of her motives grow darker. Technologies authorities now say her private e-mail program gave her the potential to delete messages. It opened her communications to hackers that State warned were a threat. Most shocking is the truth that her secretive e-mail address seems to have enabled Clinton and the State Department to evade Freedom of Info Law requests from journalists. This law is 1 of the triumphs of liberalism, meant to safeguard the public’s ideal to know when a government official refuses to give up information and facts. Due to the fact she used a private address, such requests by The AP to the State Division came up empty for a year. The organization is now deliberating no matter if to sue. In spite of the cascade of bad news, the Clinton camp’s predictable reaction to such revelations is to hunker down and attack the messengers.
~snip~
Taking a web page from Hillary’s playbook, Brock appeared on MSNBC to blame the scandal on an anti-Clinton media. I suppose he would have us think that the Washington Post is biased against Clinton. That should be why the Post was 1st to report that at different times, the Clinton Foundation has accepted millions of dollars from foreign governments, including Hamas-supporting Qatar and Saudi Arabia, an ostensible ally with strong hyperlinks to radical Islam. Is it Republican paranoia to be concerned that such countries might use the Clinton Foundation as a backdoor to seek favors from a future President Clinton? But the fallout to the e mail bombshell must once and for all place the lie to the “right-wing conspiracy” theory. The complete liberal cast of MSNBC, from Mika Brzezinksi on “Morning Joe” to Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, have sounded aghast all week that Hillary is once again behaving as if she is above the rules that apply to ordinary humans. I am not a Hillary hater. In reality, I would be overjoyed in 2016 to see the first face in the Oval Office that appears like the other half of the American population. And I believe Hillary Clinton has the intellect and the experience to be a great President. She has earned the respect of leaders all more than the world. As a tireless diplomat, she did her very best to restore trust in the United States while George W. Bush’s unnecessary war and futile occupation of Iraq wound down. But even those of us who might help her candidacy have to face a painful question: In at least a single significant way, is her character flawed?
~snip~
Quite a few sources who have worked inside Hillary’s bubble have told me how formidable and intimidating she can be. “When she says ‘Fix it!’ or ‘If there’s a challenge, fire ’em!’” she does not appreciate how she can make persons jump,” Sherburne told me. “Hillary lacks self-awareness of this trait and how it affects persons.” These perpetual and deep-seated problems make it all the a lot more required that a prominent Democrat keep up the political stress on Hillary — at least to discipline her worst instincts, if not to serve as an understudy in the occasion her candidacy implodes. I don’t imply Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont or former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. They’re decent enough politicians but without the need of the required chops. Joe Biden would be much more formidable, but he’s too closely yoked to the Obama years. The only one who has the political argument and individual fire to make a powerful stand is Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The liberal Democratic heroine was asked last week by the Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC’s “Politics Nation” no matter if Clinton would be a “progressive warrior.” Warren’s reply was cool as the snow blanketing her dwelling state. “You know, I feel that is what we gotta see,” Warren responded. “I want to hear what she wants to run on and what she says she wants to do. That’s what campaigns are supposed to be about.” Bill Clinton, I am told by a Warren insider, is the a single who sees Warren as a threat — a all-natural politician who excites the base in approaches that Hillary cannot seem to do. Ex-Sen. Clinton herself was nervous sufficient to attempt inviting the common freshman Sen. Warren for a cozy chat at the Clintons’ Washington property last December. She tried to persuade the fiery populist to abandon her own national platform as a media darling who fights for operating households. Wouldn’t she favor to take the veil as one particular of Clinton’s 200-plus friendly insiders? Not on her life. “Elizabeth is a rock-thrower,” says a close advisor, who insists on being nameless as do all on Warren’s group. The senator even keeps a bowl of rocks on her desk. When an advisor offered to send a lot more rocks from a New Year’s gathering of mostly liberal political junkies, Warren responded, “Don’t bother, I have a lot.”
~snip~
Warren, people today tell me, has small regard for Hillary. In 1998, the then-Harvard law professor met with the former Initial Lady and gained her agreement to help fight for working households against “that awful (bankruptcy) bill,” as Clinton called it. But Bill Clinton was not ready to pick a fight with the banks. As a presidential candidate-in-waiting, Hillary has shown her conflicted stance, as a single who talks challenging on redressing the erosion of middle-class wages whilst she gladly accepts huge speaking charges to sweet-speak Wall Street titans. Warren is nothing if not impassioned. As she admits in her memoir, “A Fighting Possibility,” she wasn’t born with a lot of talents. She wasn’t particularly pretty, didn’t have the highest grades, didn’t play a sport or sing. Her a single talent was she could fight: “not with my fists, but with my words.” In her memoir she writes of the day she grew up, at age 12, when her daddy had a heart attack. Quickly immediately after, the family members lost their station wagon. Then they lost their property. Her father’s job selling carpets for Montgomery Ward was taken from him, and when little Elizabeth asked her mother why, she was told his organization robbed him of some thing he had worked for all his life. But why? The kid wanted to know. The answer came: “They feel he’s going to die.” Her mother walked to Sears Roebuck to interview for her initial job. She was 50. Protecting operating households who are struggling to discharge debts, locate relief from student loans and gather youngster assistance from debt-buried spouses is personal with Warren. And it would produce a great contrast with Clinton who, when push comes to shove, appears to side with the effective, or reflexively defend her own interests. Warren insists she won’t run. Clinton’s polling position — 56% of Democrats say they’d help her at this exceedingly early moment — leaves Warren 42 points behind. So why not stage an unconventional, rogue major campaign that is suited to her message and character? According to a Warren insider who also worked with the Clinton White Property, “Elizabeth couldn’t be happier with her function — she loves pushing Hillary on economic difficulties. She’ll get all of Hillary’s responses on the record and play this out to the final possible moment, till Hillary decides.” Warren is wildly ambitious, this supply says, not for her private success, but to alter the direction of the nation. This just might be her moment.
cont'
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gail-sheehy-hillary-hope-article-1.2140351
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)My first choice has made it clear that she is not going to run....
Segami
(14,923 posts)....does anyone disagree with Ralph's summation on Elizabeth Warren? Remember, his 'Open Letter' was written 3 years ago.
By Ralph Nader, Reader Supported News
02 April 11
Open Letter to President Obama on the Nomination of Elizabeth Warren
Dear President Obama:
An interesting contrast is playing out at the White House these days—between your expressed praise of General Electric’s CEO, Jeffrey R. Immelt and the silence regarding the widely desired nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Regulatory Bureau within the Federal Reserve.
On one hand, you promptly appointed Mr. Immelt to be the chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitive, while letting him keep his full time lucrative position as CEO of General Electric (The Corporate State Expands). At the announcement, you said that Mr. Immelt “understands what it takes for America to compete in the global economy.”
Did you mean that he understands how to avoid all federal income taxes for his company’s $14.2 billion in profits last year, while corralling a $3.2 billion benefit? Or did you mean that he understands how to get a federal bailout for GE Capital and its reckless exposure to risky debt? Or could you have meant that GE knows how to block unionization of its far flung workers here and abroad? Perhaps Mr. Immelt can share with you GE’s historical experience with lucrative campaign contributions, price-fixing, pollution and those nuclear reactors that are giving people fits in Japan and worrying millions of Americans here living or working near similar reactors.
Compare, if you will, the record of Elizabeth Warren and her acutely informed knowledge about delivering justice to those innocents harmed by injustice in the financial services industry. A stand-up Law Professor at your alma mater, author of highly regarded articles and books connecting knowledge to action, the probing Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) and now in the Treasury Department working intensively to get the CFRB underway by the statutory deadline this July with competent, people-oriented staff.
There were many good reasons why Senate leader Harry Reid (Dem. Nevada) called Professor Warren and asked her to be his choice for Chair of COP. Hailing from an Oklahoman blue collar family, Professor Warren is just the “working class hero” needed to make the new Bureau a sober, law and order enforcer, deterrer and empowerer of consumers vis-à-vis the companies whose enormous greed, recklessness and crimes tanked our economy into a deep recession. The consequences produced 8 million unemployed workers and shattered trillions of dollars in pensions and other savings along with the dreams which they embodied for American workers.
Much more than you perhaps realize, millions of people, who have heard and seen Elizabeth Warren, rejoice in her brainy, heartfelt knowledge and concern over their plight. They see her as just the kind of regulator (federal cop on the beat) for their legitimate interests in a more competitive marketplace who you should be overjoyed in nominating.
Yet there are corporate forces from Wall Street to Washington determined to derail her nomination—forces with their avaricious hooks into the Republicans on Capitol Hill and the corporatists in the Treasury and White House.
You have obliged these forces again and again over the last two years, most recently with the appointment of William M. Daley, recently of Wall Street, as your chief of staff.
Selecting Elizabeth Warren and backing her fully though the nomination process will always be remembered by Americans across the land. Not doing so will not be forgotten by those same persons. This is another way of saying she has the enthusiastic constituency of “hope and change”—that is “change you can believe in!”
I look forward with many others to your response.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph Nader
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/5498-an-open-letter-to-obama-on-elizabeth-warren
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)I think many of these people saying the want a Warren run to sharpen Hillary's rhetoric believe as I do, if the general population & most importantly more primary voters hear her, she will trounce Hillary in the primaries.
They just can't say that. The Clintons are too powerful.
That's my take anyway. If you read the Robert Reich article carefully, I think that is what it's saying as well.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)I'm so tired of hearing from the Clinton camp or those who only follow cable news how Warren is a Clinton supporter. So naive (or manipulative). Will be bookmarking this for sure!
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)she is a living incarnation of unbridled ambition - normal behavioral limits of civilized society do not apply to her world
djean111
(14,255 posts)You know what is really weird? Hillary supporters' straw man about Warren supporters (or any liberals) insisting Warren and Clinton are some sort of enemies. Personally, I don't care what their personal relationship is. Then again, I don't really care much about anything a politician does, except how they govern, what they do. Heartless or practical, take your pick.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)like I have, you would know these 2 women are on opposites sides of where this country should go. And though I've been told many many times here at DU that Warren "thinks Hillary is terrific" and she "wants Hillary to run!", I absolutely know this isn't the case.
And Liz would win the primary, my opinion. I strongly believe that, just as strongly as I believe she'd win the GE.
djean111
(14,255 posts)seems like they are friendly is so silly and shallow and ridiculous.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Response to Segami (Original post)
AtomicKitten This message was self-deleted by its author.