American Politics Thread 2013: I'm a cool Rodham grandma in the USA

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/files/2013/05/sunshine-150x150.jpg

meet the new gabbneb, same as the old gabbneb ...

no, gabbneb would urge people itt to vote for some corporate shitheel like Corey Booker in the primary, something I would never do.

y'all argue like valley girls, it's unbecoming

getting my baseball bat out for next mention of 2016 btw

Asked in a CNN interview last week about his party’s turn to the left, Mr. Clinton contended that he “ran on income inequality in 1992.” Without prompting, he brought up Ms. Warren as he defended his administration’s approach to bank regulation. In 1999, Mr. Clinton signed legislation that repealed parts of the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing the commingling of commercial and investment banking, a move much criticized by the left since the financial crisis of 2008.

“When they pass bills with a veto-proof majority, with a lot of Democrats voting for it, that I couldn’t stop, all of a sudden we turn out to be maniacal deregulators,” Mr. Clinton said, lamenting the liberal perception of his financial policies. “I mean, come on. I know that Senator Warren said the other day, admitted, when she introduced a bill to reinstate the division between commercial and investment banks, she admitted that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause one single solitary financial institution to fail.”

Privately, some Democratic donors from the financial industry seem unnerved by Ms. Warren’s rise, underscoring the tension between the party’s liberal and centrist wings.

“People on Wall Street perceive her to be hostile to their industry, and so there was pretty widespread terror when she got on the Banking Committee,” said Steven Rattner, a New York financier and pillar of Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising network.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/us/politics/warren-is-now-the-hot-ticket-on-the-far-left.html?ref=politics

getting my baseball bat out for next mention of 2016 btw

― Miss Arlington twirls for the Coal Heavers (Dr Morbius), Monday, September 30, 2013 12:34 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

is there already a thread listing your endless empty threats of violence?

the thing about a possible warren candidacy isnt that the democratic party has shifted left its that the values of the entire country have changed on some big issues (see frank richs rand paul piece http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/rand-paul-2013-9) particularly wealth inequality/the finance industry and forign interventionism, hillary represents the old outdated consensus on both of those

― ภค๓ครՇє (lag∞n), Sunday, 29 September 2013

where's the evidence that warren will be anything other than terrible on foreign policy?

thanks, never heard a thing about what Superwoman has to say on such things.

as far as I know only Bernie Sanders and my beloved Alan Grayson have publicly dismissed our Iran saber rattling.

where's the evidence that warren will be anything other than terrible on foreign policy?

― zvookster, Monday, September 30, 2013 8:46 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

eh i wouldnt make too much out of some conversation on a sidewalk during a campaign

i'd say that conversation is evidence that warren won't be terrible on foreign policy!

ugh can Susan Collins, the Maine Moderate, retire in Cabot Cove or something

no one cares, but apparently a shutdown could cost the DC metropolitan area could cost the DC metropolitan area $200 million per day00 million per day.

just mentioning that because estimates of the economic costs of prior shutdown seem to be less than that. for example, the figure i often see for the clinton/gingrich epic showdown is $2 billion in overall economic damage, and that was for 27 days (6 days for the first + 21 days for the second one). that works out to about $74 million per day, for the entire country.

if $200 million per day in DC alone is even close to correct, a shutdown is way more damaging than popularly perceived at the moment.

i don't know wtf happened in that first sentence

last week NPR interviewed the owner of a local B&B who says the shutdown would destroy her if it lasted beyond a week.

i don't know wtf happened in that first sentence

― reckless woo (Z S),

budget cuts

sorry guys, due to sequestration a small but significant chuk of my sentences and punctuation are disappeari/. i have no control over what gets cut, i just have to deal it and try to telligible senten

ZS <3 u

lol at mordy

huge lol at clinton 'running on income equality in 92'

lol ZS

lol at shakey

http://img.pandawhale.com/39966-Robert-Downey-jr-laughing-gif-M5Bd.gif

lol @ lol

Clinton is as shameless a liar who's ever held the POTUSness, and i'm not forgetting anyone.

hah he kinda is the ultimate shameless let yr freak flag fly boomer

he was also iirc a bad actor while lying; he couldn't hide his temper.

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/liberals-want-elizabeth-warren-save-them-clintons/70012/

And speaking of all this

you know id like to see warren run even if hillary wins just to push wealthy inequality/corruption issues more front and center

^^ anything less than a strong and long run in the primaries would undercut her in the Senate.

really

^^ anything less than a strong and long run in the primaries would undercut her in the Senate.

― Aimless,

hm? How's that?

really

my, what a trenchant response!

Presumably EW would run on the issues you cited. These are the same issues she would be attempting to shepard through the Congress in the form of legislation. If EW put her full energies into a presidential run on these issues and did very poorly, dropping out quickly, the issues themselves would be perceived as poor vote-getters.

If I were a senator and EW ran all out on wealth inequality/corruption in my state's primary, but she got only 12% or 13% support among voters of my own party, I'd think hard before I co-sponsored a bill with EW on those issues or put more than a cursory effort into backing it. My thought would be, I'm about to be hammered for this by Wall Street and it doesn't resonate with voters, so why climb out on that limb?

i mean theres a logic there but its completely deductive

Yes, there's very little evidence that politicians pay much attention to how elections turn out.

fwiw theres a large gap between strong and long and flame out, clinton is a v strong opponent and i doubt anyone would hold it against warren if she lost early while while interjecting a few good points into the race

i mean did mcains stature take a hit when he lost to bush, does making it to sc count as strong and long

meanwhile in HRC Land:

CNN’s film division announced that it will cancel its planned documentary about Hillary Clinton because of pressure from both opponents and supporters of Clinton. The film’s cancellation came after director Charles H. Ferguson removed himself from the project.

In a Huffington Post blog, Ferguson wrote that shortly after he was brought on to the project last year, Clinton’s press secretary “interrogated” him about the film’s content. After other conversations with people close to the former secretary of state, including her husband Bill Clinton, Ferguson said he recognized that they would not make themselves available because of the film’s potential coverage of her more controversial moments.

“But when I approached people for interviews, I discovered that nobody, and I mean nobody, was interested in helping me make this film,” he wrote. “After painful reflection, I decided that I couldn’t make a film of which I would be proud.”

would gore have been a nobody if he went back to congress instead of being vp

i just want to interject another strong and long into the discussion here

If I were a senator and EW ran all out on wealth inequality/corruption in my state's primary, but she got only 12% or 13% support among voters of my own party, I'd think hard before I co-sponsored a bill with EW on those issues or put more than a cursory effort into backing it.

You could also think she was a shitty speaker who did a terrible job gathering support.

if anything generally primary runs seem to raise the profile of politicians provided they dont make fools of themselves, sometimes even when they do

did mcains stature take a hit when he lost to bush

yes. definitely. it quickly resulted in mccain moving most of the way in bush's direction on every single issue. sure, mccain discovered how to manuever around his loss and stay in power, but only by rapidly moving toward where the power obv was, not because his earlier positions were still considered strong or his personal prestige was strong enough to buck the election results.

You could also think she was a shitty speaker who did a terrible job gathering support.

Just the sort of leader you want to hitch your star to.

did mcains stature take a hit when he lost to bush

yes. definitely. it quickly resulted in mccain moving most of the way in bush's direction on every single issue.

i am thrilled to be able to say this in complete seriousness, but:

you're forgetting something: 9/11.

but it doesn't address your point. The issue doesn't suddenly become toxic because a candidate was terrible at explaining why it matters

mccains run could also be seen as the beginning of his political celebrity so im not sure, i mean he def veered right after that but he also had an established history of veering

mccain's capitulation and his moves toward rehabilitation within the party occured before 9/11

yeah McCain and Kerry's post-prez nominee careers have been spectacular flameouts, right?