In my last post, I argued that this whole furor over email is fueled by a desire to see Hillary brought low-Hillary haters have never been able to stand how 'uppity' she is-and on the Left this hatred leads to a desire to see her challenged and beaten up by the Liberal Lion, Elizabeth Warren.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/hillary-is-bad-for-breaking-email-law.html
It got me to thinking: in this age of feminism and female empowerment, how different these two accomplished and powerful women are. While the Left will argue that Warren is a real liberal and Hillary is a fraud-they simply refuse to admit that anything has changed in the Democratic party since the 90s, that she isn't as conservative as her husband was then, even he's not as conservative as he was then.
Yet, I think it goes deeper than that. Hillary and Warren are just two very different personas. I'd argeu that even today people find it more becoming of a woman to be like Warren than Hillary. Hillary is an ambitious politician. That doesn't mean she has no princoples and ideals-most politicians do-but like politicians she is self-seeking.
Warren's whole persona is not about being ambitious-she's not a politician, she's a saint who has deigned to lower herself by coming to Washington to clean up the cesspool. Hillary wants to change the world but she's also in the world and of it. Not Warren. She's in a long tradition in US politics of people who just disdain 'Washington' but condescend to go there to clean up the stinking place like Jesus that time he chased the moneylenders out of the temple.
I said in that last post that the main reason people are jumping on this email thing is they think it greases the skids for Warren taking on Hillary.
"The Post has a good overview piece reporting that Hillary Clinton’s email controversy is motivating Democratic activists to step up the pressure on other Dems to mount a serious challenge to Clinton. At the same time, though, they aren’t certain there is any Democrat with the stature to do that:
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=28791
Now this is a post Krugman ought to answer. Seriously.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/hillary-is-bad-for-breaking-email-law.html
It got me to thinking: in this age of feminism and female empowerment, how different these two accomplished and powerful women are. While the Left will argue that Warren is a real liberal and Hillary is a fraud-they simply refuse to admit that anything has changed in the Democratic party since the 90s, that she isn't as conservative as her husband was then, even he's not as conservative as he was then.
Yet, I think it goes deeper than that. Hillary and Warren are just two very different personas. I'd argeu that even today people find it more becoming of a woman to be like Warren than Hillary. Hillary is an ambitious politician. That doesn't mean she has no princoples and ideals-most politicians do-but like politicians she is self-seeking.
Warren's whole persona is not about being ambitious-she's not a politician, she's a saint who has deigned to lower herself by coming to Washington to clean up the cesspool. Hillary wants to change the world but she's also in the world and of it. Not Warren. She's in a long tradition in US politics of people who just disdain 'Washington' but condescend to go there to clean up the stinking place like Jesus that time he chased the moneylenders out of the temple.
I said in that last post that the main reason people are jumping on this email thing is they think it greases the skids for Warren taking on Hillary.
"The Post has a good overview piece reporting that Hillary Clinton’s email controversy is motivating Democratic activists to step up the pressure on other Dems to mount a serious challenge to Clinton. At the same time, though, they aren’t certain there is any Democrat with the stature to do that:
“The problem is, there’s nobody out there who’s not Clinton who’s the equivalent of Barack Obama,” said Larry Drake, chairman of the Portsmouth Democrats in New Hampshire. “He was a fresh face…and he gave great speeches and he turned out to be electable.”
"Look for the pressure to intensify on Elizabeth Warren to reconsider her almost-denials of any interest in running."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/05/morning-plum-congress-likely-to-punt-on-war-vote/
Despite this though, it seems that Warren knows that her real appeal is as a saint reviling Washington than running for its highest office.
"This quote from former Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, a close Warren ally, seems relevant:
“She’s much, much too smart to run for president. She has no chance to win—none—and she would kill her credibility if she did. She’s devoted her life to issues that she cared about, and the second people perceive her as ambitious, you know, interested in running, that’s over.”
"My strong suspicion is that Warren herself agrees."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/05/morning-plum-congress-likely-to-punt-on-war-vote/
None of this is meant to suggest I don't like Warren. She has her part to play, I agree.
To the extent that she intensifies the liberal focus on economic security I'm all for it. It seems wage stagnation ought to be a real target for Dems going forward, even if Sumner tries to claim there is no stagnation-that yeah, we're just too stupid to see our wages have been rising for 21 years.
Now this is a post Krugman ought to answer. Seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment