What the Groundswell for Elizabeth Warren for President Means

     In a previous post I suggested rather wistfully a Clinton-Warren ticket in 2016. On Twitter I see that a number of my friends and fellow libs want Warren to run by herself. Of course-they have it in for Hillary. That's my whole complaint.

      http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-about-hillary-elizabeth-warren-2016.html

      They want to throw Hillary under the bus. I just feel she's earned it by now. Maybe on this matter we should be more like the Republicans used to be where to be President you have to wait in line. Not all the time necessarily but in this election.

       In any case, according to one tweet I got, Warren has said she won't run anyway-she wants to be a thorn in the side for whatever Administration that is in the White House-including any Democratic President.

      I see the desire for her for President-that she evidently doesn't share-as something that those who want to move the party further Left want. They want the most liberal President-I prefer the most liberal President that actually wins.

      This piece by Robert Kuttner I take some issue with.

       "In the past few weeks, Obama has demonstrated that he can challenge powerful interests when a little courage seems politically opportune. He has embraced net neutrality, over the opposition of the most powerful companies in the telecom and cable industries and that of his own Federal Commission Chairman, Tom Wheeler."

        "He had also issued used his executive powers to spare four to five million undocumented U.S. residents from deportation, a move that enraged Republicans, heartened Hispanics, and enabled the president to sound almost like the Obama of 2007 and 2008 who raised such hopes among progressives."

         "On these issues, you could say that Obama is looking to the next generation of voters, or looking to his legacy; or that these two moves were astute politics. Younger Americans overwhelmingly favor net neutrality, and his executive moves to suspend deportation handily split the Republicans."

         "However, when it comes to coddling Wall Street, President Obama manages to clumsily out-flank Republicans -- to the right. As Warren reminds us, for Obama this is business as usual (or if you like, it's business -- as usual.)"

         "One top Treasury and financial official after another comes from Wall Street -- a record that would make even a Republican blush. As Warren wrote:

Starting with former Citigroup CEO Robert Rubin, three of the last four Treasury secretaries under Democratic presidents held high-paying jobs at Citigroup either before or after serving at Treasury -- and the fourth was offered, but declined, Citigroup's CEO position. Directors of the National Economic Council and Office of Management and Budget, the current Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. trade representative, also pulled in millions from Citigroup.

         "Scores of lesser officials, from heads of regulatory officials to sub-cabinet officers at cabinet agencies, came from other top Wall Street banks and investment banks."

         "In contrast to its occasional populist moves like those on net neutrality and deportations, when it comes to letting Wall Street have its way with the rest of us the administration is basically on auto-pilot. The bankers rule. The idea of naming Weiss just bubbled up from the usual suspects, and there was no real counterweight inside the Obama White House."

         "If the last election teaches anything, it shows that Democrats need to demonstrate that they are on the side of regular working Americans. When Democrats are the party of Wall Street, it allows the Tea Parties to tap the resentment against Washington and Wall Street that ordinary working Americans rightly feel."

          "Imagine the confirmation hearing. On one side, the Finance Committee's progressive Democrats will be challenging Weiss and embarrassing Obama. On the other side, Republicans will have a rare chance to identify against Wall Street."

       http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/wall-street-leading-washi_b_6208908.html

       If that's true then Obama should have lost in 2012. This is one thing firebaggers can never explain-if Obama being Right wing is the problem why didn't he get taken out in 2012-notice Teabaggers on the Right can't explain Obama's win either as they claim he's such an unpopular President. 

       Why does it matter so much whether a Treasury Secretary worked at Citi or not-I really don't see why this is so important? By the way, I don't know that immigration is 'populist' as Wall Street, including the Chamber of Commerce supports it. 

        I don't really see why everything should be described as either populist or Wall Street friendly. No, I'm not a Blue Dog-perish the thought. I welcome them leaving the party. If anything, the one silver lining in the next Democratic Congress that will be in decided minority is that it will be more disciplined without the BDs. I welcome a more liberal Democratic Congress in both Houses. 

        Still, I don't like purists. Some of the leftists on sites like Firedoglake and to a lesser extent Daily KOS or the ones in the comments section of Huffington Post seem to want Karl Marx to urn for President. 

         I don't know that I consider myself a 'populist' which is driven mostly by anger at people with money. I do think we have a real problem with stagnant middle class wages and support some economic redistribution. 

        I don't foam at the mouth like Pavlov's Dog at the sound of the words 'Wall Street banks.' I'd call myself a liberal rather than a populist. 

        Kuttna seems to see the Tea Party as populists as well which hardly makes me think I want to be a populist. Actually it's populism that is behind the government's inability to function in the last few years-the populism of the Tea Party particularly. Why? populists that are motivated by righteous anger are usually not reasonable which is what you must be if you want anything done. Populists are usually endowed with a such a strong sense that they're right morally speaking that compromise becomes unthinkable. s

       I like  Warren but I do think that some people like her for the wrong reasons.