Elizabeth Warren Fires Warning Shot Over Clinton's Bow

[libertybele]

Move over Hillary.  Here's comes Warren.  Clinton's poll numbers are sliding.  I'm still thinking that Warren will get into the race once Hillary throws in the towel ... or at least run as VP.

Elizabeth Warren Fires Warning Shot Over Clinton's Bow

On Friday, Elizabeth Warren gave the morning keynote speech at Netroots Nation. Held in Phoenix, Arizona this year to highlight immigration reform, Warren also spoke at length about financial reform -- and what she feels any presidential candidate must be prepared to do about it. She said, "anyone"; but it seemed pretty clear she was talking to Hillary Clinton. Here's Warren:

    We have a presidential election coming up. I think anyone running for that job - anyone who wants the power to make every key economic appointment and nomination across the federal government -- should say loud and clear that they agree: we don't run this country for Wall Street and mega corporations. We run it for people. Anyone who wants to be President should appoint only people who have already demonstrated they are independent, who have already demonstrated that they can hold giant banks accountable, who have already demonstrated that they embrace the kind of ambitious economic policies that we need to rebuild opportunity and a strong middle class in this country.

To put this in context: a few days earlier, Clinton gave a major speech, and talked about financial reform. It did not have the teeth of Warren's orations on that subject. For example, Clinton said "too big to fail is too big a problem", which is about as weaksauce a parroting of Bernie Sanders' "too big to fail is too big to exist" as you could imagine.

Really, though, what Clinton's toothless statements do is give her the ever-important out with her rich, banker donors. She didn't say anything that she couldn't pass off later as necessary campaign rhetoric. Sanders, of course, is all-in. He neither wants nor expects to get the banks' support. Clinton already has taken their money, and a lot of it -- which puts her in the awkward position of needing to seem like a reformer, without alienating the people she'd ostensibly be reforming.

Which brings us to the heart to of the issue.

Warren has yet to endorse a candidate. Financial reform is one of Warren's most important issues; and whoever she endorses will have to be seriously strong on Wall Street. Oh, and by the way, whoever she does endorse will quite probably seal up the nomination...

...Of course, in reality it's hard to imagine Warren not endorsing Sanders. Their positions match up almost one for one. Just listen to Warren's list of progressive values at Netroots Nation '14; and compare that to Sanders' speech Friday at the Iowa Democratic party Hall of Fame Dinner, or in Madison, Wisconsin on July 1.

He and Warren are of one mind, and Warren has already spoken of Sanders in glowing terms: "I love what Bernie is talking about. I think all the presidential candidates should be out talking about the big issues." By contrast, progressives, and Warren chief among them, aren't sold on Clinton. Like a politician of the pre-internet age, Clinton knows how to say things that sound good. But she does not take the substantive positions she needs to, that modern information access requires. Sanders emphatically does. Here he is at length, from June 19 in Las Vegas:...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liam-miller/elizabeth-warren-fires-wa_b_7827272.html

[bkepley]

So they let her talk?  Figures.

[truth_seeker]

What exactly does "conservatism" mean in the economic lives of most Americans?

The majority of Americans don't have business or economics degrees, or even degrees at all. Many fields with degrees, require not a single economics class.

So what most people rely on is their experiences. In my area, they see Chase literally opening new consumer banking branches, one mile apart. They know, or have heard the banks got the best part of the "bailouts" and stimulus last time around.

The democrats have an appeal to regulate those bad boy banks. The GOP has the appeal to let them along with other businesses, run amuck again.

Which is more appealing to the little average voter? Keep closely in mind the old white males that elected GW Bush are dying off, replaces with younger more racially diverse voters that elected Obama.

Short version: Show how to sell "conservative" economic policies.

[libertybele]

What exactly does "conservatism" mean in the economic lives of most Americans?

The majority of Americans don't have business or economics degrees, or even degrees at all. Many fields with degrees, require not a single economics class.

So what most people rely on is their experiences. In my area, they see Chase literally opening new consumer banking branches, one mile apart. They know, or have heard the banks got the best part of the "bailouts" and stimulus last time around.

The democrats have an appeal to regulate those bad boy banks. The GOP has the appeal to let them along with other businesses, run amuck again.

Which is more appealing to the little average voter? Keep closely in mind the old white males that elected GW Bush are dying off, replaces with younger more racially diverse voters that elected Obama.

Short version: Show how to sell "conservative" economic policies.

Exactly.  Sell and show why liberalism hasn't worked, isn't working and won't work and why conservatism IS the way going forward.

[truth_seeker]

Exactly.  Sell and show why liberalism hasn't worked, isn't working and won't work and why conservatism IS the way going forward.

So do it. Don't just expect somebody else to do it. That is a major shortcoming of contemporary "conservatism" if I may risk criticism again.

Conservative intellect has become complacent, assuming things are readily known, when in fact we are dealing with generations that were not born or were children under Reagan.