I REALIZE WE HAVEN’T EVEN HAD the 2014 midterm elections yet, but I thought this would be a good time to post some thoughts on the next Democratic presidential primary season — i.e., well before the stakes get high, and well after tempers have cooled from the last wide-open Democratic primaries in 2008.
So here are some general thoughts on who’s in, who’s likely to be in, and how they stack up.
Hillary Clinton: The consensus choice of the Democratic Party establishment. The storied Clinton political machine would be formidable to any Republican nominee, if she prevailed in the primaries.
Strengths: Hillary would be a formidable opponent to any Republican nominee. Also, the first woman president would be an important milestone that would have a “coat-tails” effect for women throughout society, making corporate CEO positions and university presidencies that much more open.
Weaknesses: She is not, and has not been, a friend of progressives in either foreign policy or economics. She supported the Iraq war, and there is very little daylight on economic and labor issues between her and her NAFTA-supporting, welfare-ending husband. She would represent no substantive danger to entrenched Wall Street interests, and she is not showing encouraging signs that she would do much to address the pressing issue of income and wealth inequality. She’s a Democratic Leadership Council-oriented, “triangulating” centrist, and Wall Street’s favorite Democrat.
More fundamentally, Hillary is not much of a political risk-taker. What I mean by that is, she is unlikely to forge ahead of public opinion on any issue and then use persuasion to catch the citizenry up to her. To be more blunt, she is a politician in the worst sense of that word, far too beholden to the whims of public opinion than to any particular political principle or premise. In the present moment the country needs someone who will be reliably progressive where it counts — on issues of economic fairness. Hillary is not that candidate.
Joe Biden: He’ll probably run, since it is more or less a tradition for the vice president of a two-term president to take a run at the top job.
Strengths: He’s a known quantity. I can’t think of anything to preclude him from running in 2016.
Weaknesses: He’s a known quantity. I can’t think of a compelling reason for anyone to get behind him in 2016.
Elizabeth Warren: Policy-wise, she is the Dream Candidate of just about every progressive I know, or know of. A successful Warren presidential campaign would be perceived as the End of the World for the titans of Wall Street. She has indicated pretty conclusively that she is not running in 2016, but she might be persuaded to change her mind if there were a groundswell of support for her.
Strengths: A Warren Presidency would indeed be the apocalypse for the still-far-too-dominant Rentier Class on Wall Street, who are, in the words of Mick Jagger, “… in need of some restraint.” On economic issues, she would likely be the most progressive president since FDR — and because of that, she would shake up politics in a pretty profound way in this country.
It has been a very long time since a Democratic presidential candidate talked like this:
“Starting in 1792 with George Washington, there were financial crises every ten to fifteen years. Panics, bank runs, credit freezes, crashes, depressions. People lost their farms, families were wiped out. This went on for more than a hundred years, until the Great Depression, when Oklahoma turned to dust. ‘We can do better than this,’ Americans said. ‘We don’t need to go back to the boom-and-bust cycle.’ The Great Depression produced three regulations:
“The FDIC — your bank deposits were safe.
“Glass-Steagall — banks couldn’t go crazy with your money.
“The SEC — stock markets would be tightly controlled.
“For fifty years, these rules kept America from having another financial crisis. Not one panic or meltdown or freeze. They gave Americans security and prosperity. Banking was dull. The country produced the greatest middle class the world had ever seen.”
Warren is pointing out the results of the sort of activist-government, anti-plutocratic policy approach that used to be more or less the distinguishing feature of the policies of the Democratic Party in the New Deal era, and in pointing out the consequences of weakening that approach, she’s indicating that she would honor and return to that (fading) legacy. In fact, her actions in Senate hearings bear that out.
Weaknesses: She has polled surprisingly poorly against Hillary — in a recent poll conducted in New Hampshire by Public Policy Polling, Hillary dominated with 57 percent choosing her as the nominee, as opposed to just 8 percent for Warren. It is worth mentioning, however, that it is still two years before the first primary ballot is cast, and a lot can change in that time.
My own strongest reservation about a possible Warren candidacy is that she is doing a great job in the Senate, and the loss of her rapier-sharp questioning of various fat-cats and Wall Street ne’er-do-wells would be a significant one, and hard to replace. If any significant reforms are enacted (and I still have my doubts on that front), it will be due in no small part to the firebrand senior senator from Massachusetts.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
her (Clinton’s) , welfare-ending husband.
Total welfare spending went from $136 Billion in 1992 and $145 Billion in 1993 to 183 Billion in 2001. In between spending increased (as a percentage of GDP) every year.
That being the case, why do you call him the “welfare ending President”?
The Clinton’s and reality—-
From the above article:
“She’s a Democratic Leadership Council-oriented, “triangulating” centrist, and Wall Street’s favorite Democrat.”
“To be more blunt, she is a politician in the worst sense of that word,…”
Well stated, Mr. Talbot.
From the article below–a deeper, more penetrating analysis of Hillary and Bill for the community and Mr. Talbot to consider…
“Hillary Rodham Clinton is obviously a woman, but there is nothing special about her political views.”
“Both Clintons are in a long line of liberals stretching back to Wilson who possess a one-world philosophy that is couched in warm-and-fuzzy terms but, in practice, means a Pax Americana built by transnational corporations and the U.S. military.”
“Those who want peace on Earth and who favor a humble American republic rather than an overbearing American empire must look elsewhere for an alternative to Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and the bipartisan foreign policy status quo. If elected president in 2016, Hillary Clinton will not save the world. It is doubtful that she will even serve the nation, if we define the nation as the non-powerful, non-wealthy 99 percent. It is time to face reality.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/14/hillary-clintons-burden/
The Clinton’s and reality—-
From the above article:
“She’s a Democratic Leadership Council-oriented, “triangulating” centrist, and Wall Street’s favorite Democrat.”
“To be more blunt, she is a politician in the worst sense of that word,…”
Well stated, Mr. Talbot.
From the article below more information-truth-telling about Hillary for the community and Mr. Talbot to contemplate…
What Does She Stand for Other Than Herself?
Why Hillary?
“What of her credentials? They actually are quite thin – if scrutinized honestly. Hillary’s one major engagement as First Lady was the ill-starred attempt at devising a health care plan. The effort was an abject failure. Its conception behind closed doors made it suspect from the outset, its unveiling was politically maladroit and the plan itself was so complicated as to put it in contention with Barack Obama’s baroque creation for the Rube Goldberg prize.”
“As for her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary’s most remarkable accomplishment has been the fawning attention that she has been given by the press. She was covered as a celebrity rather than as a stateswoman with heavy responsibilities. ”
“Judging Hillary on foreign policy, therefore, is relatively simple. If you are satisfied with what has been done over the past five years, then you will welcome more of the same.”
“Both Clintons have fully backed the Obama administration’s Wall Street friendly approach to the financial crisis. They are intimates of the very same people (Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Hank Greenberg, et al) who brought us to ruin and who have shaped the Obama policies. They buzz around on the private jets of hedge fund sycophants.”
“As to the cutting issues of budgets and deficits, the Clinton’s are charter members of the deficit hawk contingent within the Democratic Party. They promote the Simpson-Bowles assault on Social Security and Medicare. Bowles was Clinton’s Chief of Staff.”
“So, if you liked Barack Obama’s “moderate Republican” philosophy and agenda, Hillary is the ticket.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/19/60236/
Digging deeper on Warren’s record—
From the above article:
Elizabeth Warren: “Policy-wise, she is the Dream Candidate of just about every progressive I know, or know of.”
No mention in the above article about Ms. Warren’s foreign policy record. I was looking for something else and came across this column that might interest Mr. Talbot specifically and the wider community more generally.
A key passage form the article below:
“While progressives celebrate Warren for her fight against the big banks and the financial industry’s lobbying arm, they have kept silent over the fact that she has enlisted with another powerful lobby that is willing to sabotage America’s economic recovery in order to advance its narrow interests. It is AIPAC, the key arm of the Israel lobby; a group that is openly pushing for a US war on Iran that would likely trigger a global recession, as the renowned economist Nouriel Roubini recently warned. The national security/foreign policy position page on Warren’s campaign website reads as though it was cobbled together from AIPAC memos and the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry by the Democratic Party hacks who are advising her. It is pure boilerplate that suggests she knows about as much about the Middle East as Herman “Uzbeki-beki-stan-stan” Cain, and that she doesn’t care.”
“The same progressives who refused to vet Barack Obama’s views on foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008, and who now feel betrayed that he is not the liberal savior they imagined him to be, are repeating their mistake with Warren”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/26-8
The Clinton’s and reality—-
From the above article:
“She’s a Democratic Leadership Council-oriented, “triangulating” centrist, and Wall Street’s favorite Democrat.”
“To be more blunt, she is a politician in the worst sense of that word,…”
Well stated, Mr. Talbot.
From the article below, more information-truth telling for the community to consider…
Key question: Is this the best we can do?
Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon-Lite?
“As a U.S. senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton often followed a neocon-style foreign policy, backing the Iraq War, teaming up with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on an Afghan War “surge,” and staking out an even more hawkish stance than Gates on Libya…”
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/10/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon-lite/
Hillary and political reality—-
From the above article:
“She’s a Democratic Leadership Council-oriented, “triangulating” centrist, and Wall Street’s favorite Democrat.”
“To be more blunt, she is a politician in the worst sense of that word,…”
Well stated, Mr. Talbot.
From the article below– more “Hillary” news the community and Mr. Talbot can use …
“Secrecy, Vanity and Paranoia”
“Hillary Clinton: Shades of Watergate”
“It’s become far too fashionable, over the decades since disgraced president Richard Nixon’s resignation, to tack the suffix “-gate” onto political scandals. The usage no longer conveys much useful information. In most cases, it’s mere cliche.”
“Not so when it comes to the revelation that, as US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton essentially privatized her work email. This is definitely Watergate-level stuff.”
“Clinton’s actions went far beyond those of Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, who as governors got caught conducting some official business over personal web mail accounts. Clinton ran all of her office email through her own private server, registered under a fake name and physically located in her New York home.”
“Hillary Clinton knew better.”
“She knew the Federal Records Act required preservation of her official emails on State Department Servers. Neither she nor her staff took steps to comply with that law during her time in office.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/06/hillary-clinton-shades-of-watergate/
Hillary’s reality—-
From the above article:
“She’s a Democratic Leadership Council-oriented, “triangulating” centrist, and Wall Street’s favorite Democrat.”
“To be more blunt, she is a politician in the worst sense of that word,…”
Well stated, Mr. Talbot.
From the article below more information-truth-telling about Hillary for the community and Mr. Talbot to contemplate…
“Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton”
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton
A Clinton history lesson for those who care to read and remember—
From the above article:
“She’s a Democratic Leadership Council-oriented, “triangulating” centrist, and Wall Street’s favorite Democrat.”
“To be more blunt, she is a politician in the worst sense of that word,…”
Well stated, Mr. Talbot.
From the article below more information-truth-telling about Hillary for the community and Mr. Talbot to contemplate…
“The Making of Hillary Clinton”
“Secrecy, Intransigence and War”
An excerpt:
“The desire for secrecy is one of Mrs. Clinton’s enduring and damaging traits, which is why these campaign imbroglios are of consequence. Clinton dug himself into many a pit, but his greatest skill was in talking his way out of them in a manner Americans found forgivable. Befitting a Midwestern Methodist with a bullying father, repression has always been one of Mrs. Clinton’s most prominent characteristics. Hers has been the instinct to conceal, to deny, to refuse to admit any mistake. Mickey Kantor, the Los Angeles lawyer who worked on the 1992 campaign, said that Hillary adamantly refused to admit to any mistakes.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/15/secrecy-intransigence-and-war/
A Clinton history lesson for those who care to read and remember—
The Warmongering Record of Hillary Clinton
From the post below: More detailed information and news for the community to consider about Hillary…
An excerpt:
“This is a country of 323 million people. 88% of those over 25 have graduated high school. The world respects U.S. culture, science, and technology. Why is it that out of our well-educated, creative masses the best that the those who decide these things—the secretive cliques within the two official, indistinguishable political parties who answer to the 1% and who decide how to market electoral products—can come up with is the likely plate of candidates for the presidential election next year? Why is it that, while we all find it ridiculous that North Korea’s ruled by its third Kim, Syria by its second Assad, and Cuba by its second Castro, the U.S. electorate may well be offered a choice between another Clinton and another Bush? As though their predecessors of those surnames were anything other than long-discredited warmongering thugs?”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/11/the-warmongering-record-of-hillary-clinton/
Yes Wii, there are some far left extremists with the integrity to admit that Hillary is one huge fraud, whose career is an antithesis of what a feminist truly should be. Problem is those same extremists will still vote for her if she is the Democrat nominee.
Case in point confirming both of the above: Camille Paglia.
Hillary’s reality…
More information for the community and Mr. Talbot to consider…
“It is said that one can learn a lot about a person by the company he or she keeps. In this case, one can learn much about Mrs. Clinton by the companies that keep her.”
“Mrs. Clinton either has, or is expected to raise, upwards of $2 billion dollars to purchase a four-year lease to the White House. She might wish the public to believe that hard-working United States citizens, toiling at the shop or office every day, are scraping together $5.00 and $10.00 donations, all of which, in total, achieves that $2 billion. However, such is not the case. Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign is being financed by the same organizations that fund her and her husband’s charitable organization, A look at some of them is more than a little interesting. Because the list is so extensive, we will just show oil companies and defense contractors. This list shows companies in those categories that both donated to the Clinton foundation (along with the amount given), and lobbied the State Department.
Defense Contractors:
* Boeing: between $1 million and $5 million.
* Lockheed Martin: between $100,000 and $300,000.
Oil Companies
* Duke Energy Corporation: between $1 million and $5 million
* ExxonMobil: between $1 million and $5 million.
* Chevron: between $500,00 and $1 million
* Noble Energy: between $200,000 and $500.00.
* Hess Corporation: between $100,000 and $250,000.
And, as a bonus, the top three contributors:
* Microsoft/Gates Foundation: at least $26 million
* Walmart: between $2 million and $11 million.
* Coca-Cola: between $5million and $10 million.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/01/hillary-clinton-elitist-imperialist-politician-extraordinaire/
More Hillary and Jeb election news the community can use…
“Now that Jeb Bush has officially announced his intention to run for president in 2016, the most corporate-funded presidential election in history is set to begin, headed by two prospective frontrunners with eerily familiar names. It’s Bush versus Clinton—again!”
“The two candidates are almost identical on the major issues poisoning our republic.” Details below:
1.” They both have blatantly corrupt corporate ties”
2. “They are both major war hawks.”
3. “They both support the Patriot Act and NSA mass surveillance.”
4. “They both support fracking.”
5.” They both support the Drug War”
6. “They both aggressively support big banks and bailing them out.”
7. “They both support Monsanto and GMOs”
8. “They will both spend billions on the upcoming election”
9. “They both support the secretive and dangerous TPP agreement.”
10. “They both support the death penalty.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/10-ways-hillary-clinton-and-jeb-bush-are-basically-the-same-presidential-candidate/5456953
Beyond the corporate controlled news media—
More Jeb Bush news the community can use…
“The Mind of Jeb”
‘People such as Molly Ivins and James Moore gave the U.S. lots of warning, from the wisdom of Texans, before the Supreme Court falsified the 2000 election results in what will always be falsely remembered as the American public electing George W. Bush president. Here comes( Stephen) Goldstein from Florida to warn us about Jeb.”
“Yet the corporate press is complicit in the baseless idea that Jeb Bush is someone worth paying any attention to at all. It knows it was complicit in George’s stolen election in which Jeb was complicit…” ” The press has a lot invested in the pretense that Jeb Bush matters.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/18/the-last-jeb-killed-for-slavery-the-last-bush-killed-for-oil/
From will’s post:before the Supreme Court falsified the 2000 election results
I have to admit there is always a large amount of schadenfreude at play whenever I see someone crying and whining about the election of 2000. I for one was glad to see the GOP finally have the intestinal fortitude to prevent the Democrats from stealing an election.
This article is from that long ago era, that still brings tears to the eyes of those willing to:
Change the rules, falsify ballots, throw out ballots from the military, accept an incorrect in state ruling and launch a war on Katherine Harris.
Here is how it was being done.
‘HOW DEMOCRATS
STEAL ELECTIONS’Veterans of hand recounts describe techniques used to change outcome
Matt it was a nice article. What I got from it was it is about you. It appears to me you are very left leaning Liberal. That type of Democrat would lose the Presidential race. Hillary is far the Dems best candidate. She would be hard to beat. I would think that if she sees facing a Senate and House controlled by the Republicans she will not run. Then the door is wide open for a Republican President. I did enjoy your article but it was more about you.
By the wAY Matt my saying it is about you is not a negative commemnt. When I write LTTE is is about my opinion or as some could say it is also about me. Nothing wwrong with that. I do have a big ego.
What about John Kerry?
Neither party likes to recycle its losers. Hasn’t happened since Nixon in 1968. Dems haven’t done it since Stevenson in 1956.
I strongly doubt Biden runs if Hillary also runs. Merit aside, he’d lose badly. Not a great way to end his political career.
I also strongly doubt Warren will run. First, she’s said as much. And, as you suggest, she can accomplish great things where she’s currently at.
From a horse race perspective, there’s little to debate if Hillary runs. If she runs…barring unforeseen circumstances…she’ll win the nomination. The more intriguing discussion might be in re who she’ll choose as her running mate. Does she add someone from the left to galvanize the grass root activists? Does she look for help in a swing state? She could do both with Sherrod Brown. Of course, much will depend on the state of the race in 2016…a long time off. If the Whigs nominee comes from another clown car full of candidates, it won’t matter who she picks, She’ll win big.
Sherrod Brown might be a great pick – he’s got a populist orientation that is just the ticket. The grass roots would love him, but I haven’t seen enough of him on the stump to have any sense of whether he could galvanize people to action. The Democratic party has always been more or less a herd of cats, making this skill pretty essential in a candidate.
I think Elizabeth Warren, at either the top of the ticket or as the VP candidate, would be the best thing that the Democrats could do to help assure that the best interests of the country are realized.
Love your assessment of Biden. Stand up for Chuck! Poor guy can’t get out of his own way.
Stand up for Chuck!
Or as Wendy Davis said: “walk in my shoes!”