One more reason to like her, Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who want her to run to embarrass Hillary-a lot of people seem to like Hillary to be brought low for whatever reason.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-before-the-fall-115680.html?hp=lc2_4
Roger Simon both praises himself for not having pride and warns Hillary that her pride is going to lead to her fall. When was the last time a male candidate was accused of having too much pride? I'm just asking.
When Obama said 'You're likable enough, Hillary' it was seen as a watershed moment. At the time everyone laughed at Hillary but later they held it against Obama for saying it. However, she is better liked now than she was then-thanks to the way her and Obama became friends and he took or on as his Secretary of State. This was a brilliant move by President Obama I believe, the classic example of what the economists call comparative advantage.
What can I tell you. I get it that it can be dangerous to be the 'inevitable candidate' see Rudolph Giuliani as well as Hillary in 2008 but what do you want her to do-raise money for people to run against her?
While I like Warren I will say 'You're liberal enough, Hillary' at least for me. For me at the end of the day it's not about each individual and who is the most liberal but it's about getting the party elected. If you look at the problems we've had since 2010 with the election of the Tea Party, it's not enough Democrats rather than Democrats who are not liberal enough. This is simple math. When you don't have the numbers to pass stuff it doesn't matter your level of ideological purity.
So I'm happy to hear Warren won't run-the polls don't seem to give her than chance some have wanted to claim-some just don't like the fact that someone is 'the inevitable candidate' and want to see Hillary punished just for that; ie, no matter what she says, she'll be accused of being proud and arrogant because she is 'inevitable'-that she is a proud, 'uppity' woman only adds to the schadenfreude of those who want to see her fail.
Again, what isn't appreciated is that the reason Hillary seems-and I think maybe is-inevitable this time is because of the President himself. There's a case to be made that it was his total public embrace of her in that 2013 joint interview they gave on CNN that cemented her as the inevitable 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate. Some complained that he had totally thrown his own Veep, Joe Biden under the bus.
But ok. This piece was supposed to be about Warren. I like Warren but am glad she's not running against Hillary. For those who think that Democratic party's problem is that Democrats are not liberal enough-rather than what I think-they're not enough of them-Warren can continue to go all fire and brimstone in the Senate where she can raise awareness of this or that financial issue.
I do like what she has done on the Netanyahu speech where the GOP is outrageously allowing Netanyahu to do what is specifically prohibited: running his Israeli campaign from the Capitol Hill floor.
"It’s unfortunate that Speaker Boehner’s actions on the eve of a national election in Israel have made Tuesday’s event more political and less helpful for addressing the critical issue of nuclear nonproliferation and the safety of our most important ally in the Middle East,’ Warren said, emphasizing her support for Israel and her worry over nuclear proliferation in Iran."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/elizabeth-warren-to-skip-benjamin-netanyahu-speech-115683.html#ixzz3TKx3eTyV
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-before-the-fall-115680.html?hp=lc2_4
Roger Simon both praises himself for not having pride and warns Hillary that her pride is going to lead to her fall. When was the last time a male candidate was accused of having too much pride? I'm just asking.
When Obama said 'You're likable enough, Hillary' it was seen as a watershed moment. At the time everyone laughed at Hillary but later they held it against Obama for saying it. However, she is better liked now than she was then-thanks to the way her and Obama became friends and he took or on as his Secretary of State. This was a brilliant move by President Obama I believe, the classic example of what the economists call comparative advantage.
What can I tell you. I get it that it can be dangerous to be the 'inevitable candidate' see Rudolph Giuliani as well as Hillary in 2008 but what do you want her to do-raise money for people to run against her?
While I like Warren I will say 'You're liberal enough, Hillary' at least for me. For me at the end of the day it's not about each individual and who is the most liberal but it's about getting the party elected. If you look at the problems we've had since 2010 with the election of the Tea Party, it's not enough Democrats rather than Democrats who are not liberal enough. This is simple math. When you don't have the numbers to pass stuff it doesn't matter your level of ideological purity.
So I'm happy to hear Warren won't run-the polls don't seem to give her than chance some have wanted to claim-some just don't like the fact that someone is 'the inevitable candidate' and want to see Hillary punished just for that; ie, no matter what she says, she'll be accused of being proud and arrogant because she is 'inevitable'-that she is a proud, 'uppity' woman only adds to the schadenfreude of those who want to see her fail.
Again, what isn't appreciated is that the reason Hillary seems-and I think maybe is-inevitable this time is because of the President himself. There's a case to be made that it was his total public embrace of her in that 2013 joint interview they gave on CNN that cemented her as the inevitable 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate. Some complained that he had totally thrown his own Veep, Joe Biden under the bus.
But ok. This piece was supposed to be about Warren. I like Warren but am glad she's not running against Hillary. For those who think that Democratic party's problem is that Democrats are not liberal enough-rather than what I think-they're not enough of them-Warren can continue to go all fire and brimstone in the Senate where she can raise awareness of this or that financial issue.
I do like what she has done on the Netanyahu speech where the GOP is outrageously allowing Netanyahu to do what is specifically prohibited: running his Israeli campaign from the Capitol Hill floor.
"It’s unfortunate that Speaker Boehner’s actions on the eve of a national election in Israel have made Tuesday’s event more political and less helpful for addressing the critical issue of nuclear nonproliferation and the safety of our most important ally in the Middle East,’ Warren said, emphasizing her support for Israel and her worry over nuclear proliferation in Iran."
"The senator’s statement was not widely distributed through her press office. She also noted that she met with Netanyahu in Israel in November, the first foreign trip of her Senate career. Warren voted against the Senate’s new Iran sanctions bill in the Senate Banking Committee in January, one of just four Democrats to oppose legislation that would impose new penalties on Iran in the event it reneges on any nuclear agreement with the United States."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/elizabeth-warren-to-skip-benjamin-netanyahu-speech-115683.html#ixzz3TKx3eTyV
It does seem like she isn't trying to publicize this too much. As Paul Waldman notes, there is real fear among Demcorats about looking unfriendly to Israel-even though there's a difference between being friendly with Netanyahu and the country itself; I'm not friendly at all to Boehner but I love this country. That's the problem with the way Bibi is doing this: it's making the speical relationship of our 2 countries a partisan issue. This is not a good thing if you're a concerned Israeli either as you don't want you're realtionship with the US to be based on which party is in the White House.
"Here’s a list of all 47 Congressional Democrats who (as of now) won’t be attending Netanyahu’s speech."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/02/happy-hour-roundup-552/
Yes, there should be many more Democrats ducking that speech-this is less than 25%. Israel scares most Democrats.
As Waldman puts it:
"Breaking: Benjamin Netanyahu is full of it:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that his planned speech to Congress is not meant to signal any disrespect for President Obama, nor to insert political partisanship into the U.S.-Israel relationship.“Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given,” Netanyahu said about the address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday. “My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both.”
"Yes, his representatives got together with John Boehner to arrange for him to speak before Congress and lambaste the administration on Iran, without actually informing the White House. But no disrespect."
No comments:
Post a Comment