By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius, Tumblr and Facebook. Originally published at at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.
There are several parts to a story that’s just starting to be told, the tale of the pressure applied by prominent and establishment Democratic women to get Sen. Elizabeth Warren to support Hillary Clinton. Part of that story is taking place in the present — the pressure is being applied now. And it now seems that part of that story may extend into the past — as earlier pressure not to “get in the way” (my characterization) of a possible, as-yet-unannounced Clinton run. The first part of the story is certain, the other, less so, though indications are beginning to emerge.
Let’s look at these two parts briefly, the present story and the past one, to see if some dots connect, and to see what other dots might be connected later, pending more data.
Keep in mind, this is an unusual primary for Democrats — we can choose an anti-Money revolution, or a woman president, but we can’t choose both, not this time. This complicates both the decision and the optics of endorsing Clinton, especially for women, and especially for women connected to the in-place Democratic establishment. If you haven’t figured out why, you’ll see in a moment. Read on.
The Present Pressure on Elizabeth Warren to Endorse Hillary Clinton
This present part of the story comes via a good story in The Hill. I encourage reading it all; I found all of it useful:
Female senators urge Warren: Back Hillary Clinton
Female Democratic senators are privately urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren to formally endorse Hillary Clinton for president.
The lobbying campaign comes as the Democratic race between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is heating up going into the New Hampshire primary next week.
A group of Democratic senators is taking a bus tour of New Hampshire this weekend to stump for Clinton, and they want the liberal Massachusetts powerhouse to get on board. Clinton narrowly defeated Sanders in the Iowa caucuses earlier this week, but the Vermont senator is a heavy favorite to win New Hampshire.
A few of the senators have discussed with Warren the possibility of publicly backing Clinton. …
“I’m hopeful she’ll join us. I’m hopeful she’ll join the revolution that will allow us to come together to elect” the first female president, said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), one of Clinton’s staunchest supporters.Asked if she or other senators had approached Warren personally, Stabenow said, “We all talk about it,” but declined to reveal what Warren has said in response.
And:
A Democratic aide said the Senate women have been “trying to do a little arm twisting in recent months.”
“Her role in this campaign would be valuable,” the staffer said. “I think she’s gotten more attention than most senators, and I think it would mean a lot.”
Other women in the Senate have thrown themselves wholeheartedly into the campaign for Clinton, which they see as a historic opportunity to advance women’s rights.
Women named in the article as lobbying Warren to support Clinton include Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Barbara Mikulski (Md.). Others named in the article as campaigning actively for Clinton, though not named as lobbying Warren, include Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii).
The question is, why would a senator who said this on the floor of the Senate (my emphasis)…
“A new presidential election is upon us. The first votes will be cast in Iowa in just eleven days. Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run this country like some private club.”
… endorse Hillary Clinton? That’s a real question. And the answer is, “Of course she would endorse Clinton — unless she were speaking of Clinton.”
Which raises real questions, I think, about the reason many (but not all) establishment Democratic women are endorsing Clinton over Sanders. It’s certainly true that many think it is time for the first woman president and that Clinton should be that woman, in spite of her ties to Money — for example, ties to the Goldman Sachs executive in the video above.
But it also has to be said that some (I have a few names in mind) think Clinton should be that woman because of her ties to Money and the mainstream establishment that feeds from (and feeds) the same troughs, the establishment from which they draw their own daily cup. For these women, endorsing Clinton achieves two goals with one stroke of the pen, both of which are desirable.
Hillary-Only Feminism?
I wonder … if there were only a way we could test those commitments to “first woman president” and factor the ties to Money out of the choice. Perhaps if Warren were also running … or thought to be thinking about running … with Clinton not yet declared as as candidate … would these women support Warren because “first woman president”?
I wonder…
In 2014, Zephyr Teachout asked me [the writer of the piece] whether she should run against powerful incumbent Governor Andrew Cuomo. I told her that the only reason not to do it would be fear — fear that his machine would belittle her, discredit her, turn her into a joke. She stared at me, and said, “Now I have to do it, because you just dared me to.” That’s a bad ass lady, the kind of lady who is gonna take a hammer to the glass ceiling, smash it, and pull everybody up with her.
We fought that race with almost zero institutional support. Hillary Clinton supported Cuomo. Imagine an alternate universe where Hillary was the champion of progressive women in her own state. She would have been on our rickety bus, sweating the broken air conditioning, letting people know that the era of “three men in a room” making all the decisions was over. We would have elected our first female governor in New York.
After Zephyr lost her campaign, I teamed up with some other awesome ladies who wanted to see Elizabeth Warren run for president. We were inspired not just by her passion for financial reform, but also by her biography. Once again, institutional support was thin. And the supposedly feminist argument from a lot of Hillary fans was that it wasn’t Elizabeth’s turn. Another woman would dilute Hillary’s chances, which would be bad for the cause of electing Hillary as the first female president. Hillary-only Feminism. [my emphases]
Four takeaways for later thought:
- “Hillary Clinton supported Cuomo” against a progressive woman with a real chance to win, Zephyr Teachout.
- “[Warren’s] institutional support [for a possible presidential run] was thin.”
- A “supposedly feminist argument from a lot of Hillary fans was that it wasn’t Elizabeth’s turn.”
- “Hillary-only Feminism” is a striking turn of phrase, and the most highlighted phrase from the article according to Medium.
Why did Ms. Clinton not support Ms. Teachout, also a “progressive,” as “first woman governor” of New York? Seems appropriate for someone asking for support on the basis of “first woman president.” Perhaps Clinton thought Teachout was the wrong woman to be the first woman governor of NY.
Much to think about. I’d love to know if anyone made the “not your turn” argument to Warren herself, or whether these “Hillary fans” just said it to each other.
Perhaps when Warren writes her page-turning memoirs, she’ll peel back that curtain as well.
(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you’d like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you’d like to “phone-bank for Bernie,” go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)
Well, as far as I can tell the first black president didn’t do a whole lot for advancing black people.
Ah yes, the neoliberal-era identity politics logic that equality is being exploited by a person who looks like you
Interesting that Sanders attempting to become both our first non-Christian president (I consider JFK & Catholics Christians) and our first non-religious president gets no pub.
I’d be willing to bet Hillary’s “60% of my donors are women” is eclipsed by Bernie’s support among the non-religious.
I’m one.
He would not be the first non-religious. I’m not sure who was first, but Lincoln and especially Andrew Johnson were not religious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
and the founding fathers were not Christian. they were agnostics and free Masons
Dietiests would seem the operative nomenclature here, might have something to do with the historical purview of feudalistic lords embracing Christianity, quantifying their reign beyond repute.
“Divine Providence” can be interpreted in many ways, always non-denominational.
Yes, and electing a neo-redneck faux cowboy (Dubya) didn’t do much for blue-collar whites either.
Exactly!
Just as, back in the day, only Nixon could have gone to China.
Nixon went to China to sell-out the jobs of the silent majority for his fellow corporate lawyers to arbitrage the Asian neo-slaves and split it with Mao Tse-Dung. Viet Nam gave him cover and he beat it like a government mule. Nixon’s the One, filling the prisons with his dreams, and nightmares for just us. Statesman of death, him and Henry the Kissingkiller.
Actually under the first black president I have heard that more African American wealth has been lost than under any other administration.
Due to the fallout of Bush’s recession. Obama could (apparently) only go so far to correct it. Who knows if he did or didn’t want to work harder on that, given his now very well-known connections to corporate oligarchy.
The contempt these rich b@$t@rd$ have for working class and poor Americans is palpable. It is so blatantly obvious, so egregious an air of superiority that this alone is case enough to regulate them into oblivion.
Regulation is designed to protect them; not us.
As long as corporations are legally people and money is considered speech, it will remain thus.
What? Regulations don’t just appear, they are directives created to right an identified wrong, and to limit or stop damaging actions by capitalists who care little about people or the environment
What ever gave you that idea?
viz Shrilly– I mean Shkrelli or howvwertheheck he spells it… literally smirking, disdaining, condescending in that last batch of hearings. A perfect encapsulation of the broader behaviors of the THEM than is again’ the US
Ugg. I thought the world was ugly yesterday. Good post nevertheless, Gaius.
I am puzzled by the Hillary Clinton endorsements of establishment Democratic women and many feminists.
Hillary Clinton is a proven neocon warhawk.
“I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time.”
“Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels.” – Hillary Clinton review of Kissinger’s book “World Order
Kissinger, the master of depraved realpolitik with a callous indifference to human life and human rights.
“In a famous expression of his contempt for democracy, Kissinger once observed that he saw no reason why a certain country should be allowed to “go Marxist” merely because “its people are irresponsible.” The country concerned was Chile, which at the time of this remark had a justified reputation as the most highly evolved pluralistic democracy in the southern hemisphere of the Americas.” – Christopher Hitchins, The Trial of Henry Kissinger
Kissinger is prima facie guilty of direct collusion in the murder of Chilean President Salvador Allende of a democratic and peaceful country.
Is this reflective of Clinton’s commitment to democratic principles and values?
What kind of a feminist would be responsible for or condone the slaughter of hundreds of women, children, and men around the world?
To rewrite the words of Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, a handful of women, inured to war, proceed to certain victory, while on the contrary, multitudes of women, children, and men are dragged to slaughter.
I think it all shows very clearly just how out of touch so much elite opinion is. Sometimes its mendacious, sometimes they simply don’t have a clue, they really, genuinely think that electing someone like Clinton would make a difference for ‘women’ (when of course they really mean upper middle class white women).
Corey Robin has a very good take down of this in Crooked Timber:
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/02/05/90-of-what-goes-on-at-the-new-york-can-be-explained-by-vulgar-marxism/
… they really, genuinely think that electing someone like Clinton would make a difference for ‘women’ (when of course they really mean upper middle class white women)
Very true.
The Kate Albright-Hanna piece from which Gaius quotes makes this explicit:
The unstated assumption is that what is good for upper middle class professional women is ipso facto good for all women, and by extension that their less well off sisters should therefore be willing to sacrifice their economic interests on the altar of gender solidarity. Call it the “trickle down” theory of social mobility.
Also Corey Robin’s takedown of Alexandra Schwartz was timely and cogent. Thanks for sharing it.
Actually, Kissinger is a flaming dove compared to Hillary. For example, see this recent article by Kissinger: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/kissingers-vision-us-russia-relations-15111
Trying to appeal to the left, Hillary recently ran an outrageous ad touting her proud history of “peace through diplomacy”. In Clinton’s circles, they probably roll their eyes when Kissinger explains that Russia has national interests that must be understood and respected. She is probably so out of touch with the masses that she doesn’t realize the nature of Kissinger’s reputation.
I hope Warren will at least stay neutral, it would pay off for her in the long run to be seen as someone who could not be bought or pushed around.
Even better would be to have her on the ticket with Sanders as VP.
I will not vote for HRC.
She needs to be on the Sanders ticket. He’s pretty old.
Pretty old compared to what? People work into their 90s these days.
People do not do what President’s do in their 90s. My father was in excellent shape until he was 88 but it is impossible to image him working 12 hour days day after day with the kind of memory and attention needed to exercise the office of chief magistrate properly. Very special people can do it into their 70s. I’m 51 and don’t have the attention and focus I did in my 30s when I wrote my two books.
Sanders can do 4 years easy. (If he works like RR did, he could do 10 years easy, but that’s a separate issue).
Shipping by rail just took a huge drop, and there were no container vessels going between Europe and USA on 1st of Jan. If Sanders can make it past the Democratic machine, then it’s a good chance he will be a one term president. Carter and Bush Sr. both got in on bursting bubbles and paid the price 4 years later. Here the bubble is huge while the economy is already anemic.
In all likelihood and judging by how hard he works on the campaign trail, yes he is up to it BUT at the age he is, something can happen quite quickly healthwise that is bad and disastrous and the odds of remaining healthy are always iffy (I know this even at my age, younger than his, because i have seen so many bad things happen to same-age friends by now, even friends who appeared “perfect” healthwise). That simply didn’t happen when I was younger, except in a blue moon; now it’s common.
No reason not to elect him, but it is totally a reason for being VERY careful to choose a really capable and YOUNGER vice-president.
Could he do any worse than the Gipper?
Sanders should pick Warren as VP and completely delegate finance and economics to her. This way he’ll only have to work 6 hrs a day.
No no no. She is much more valuable on the Senate than being a token official. The only position I would want her to leave the Senate for is the Fed Reserve Board, SEC or Treasure Secretary.
The next time my pro-Hilary friend B . . asks me why I don’t support her I’ll ask her “Where was Hilary when Zephyr Teachout ran for governor of her state against Andrew Cuomo?
Heh. Me, too.
She was busy making her special place in hell more comfortable
On the basis of pure political calculation, I don’t see the gain for Warren in backing Clinton. She is wise enough to the world to know that anything Clinton promises her will not be delivered. Even if she is promised a senior post if Clinton was elected, she knows full well she will be sidelined by all the other bankers Clinton will appoint to economic positions. And if Clinton loses, then Warren will have lost a lot of her moral authority.
But I’m not sure its in her interests to openly back Sanders either. If he was to fade away, or if it turned into a very nasty battle, it will do her a lot of damage within the party and her ability to do good things in the Senate will be undermined.
So I think its pretty clear that its in her interest to stay as a coy bystander for the while – the longer she holds out, the more valuable her backing will be. And it may well be that if the fight is really 50:50 she will gain enormous leverage.
Having said that, she must surely have given thought to running with Sanders (can there be any doubt he would ask her?). At his age and health he is not likely to stand for a second term if he wins, so his vice president would have a very clear run. I’m sure this must have crossed her mind.
As to the issue of the other female senators, if they really see getting a rich white woman into the White House as more important than getting someone who is actually willing to defend the interests of ordinary people over the 1%, then they really are beneath contempt.
There are no ifs, ands, or buts about them. They are mendacious and they are beneath contempt. They really do have a clue though…. its called status quo.
“As to the issue of the other female senators, if they really see getting a rich white woman into the White House as more important than getting someone who is actually willing to defend the interests of ordinary people over the 1%, then they really are beneath contempt.”
Perfectly put.
My views:
If Senator Warren, someone I hold in high esteem, were to endorse HRC I would probably lose all respect for her. Warren & Sanders seem much more aligned on issues, with Warren & HRC appearing more as polar opposites (unless you believe the lies HRC is now spouting after seeing how much support Sanders is gathering, by attempting to “jump on his platform bandwagon”).
If women vote for HRC just because she is a woman, then they are beneath contempt, as well. Gender or race is the dumbest reason to vote for someone. It should be the best PERSON for the job.
I don’t think Warren could accomplish as much as VP as she can as Senator, but I’m hoping she ends up endorsing Bernie Sanders as the people speak with their votes for change.
Great article about something I had been pondering regarding Warren.
Picking Warren as a VP makes no strategic sense. Sanders will take Massachusetts from Cruz or Rubio. Perhaps it doesn’t work any more, but the logic was always to pick a VP who would bring a state with them in the general. Warren does nothing on this score. And elections are still decided state by state, not vote by vote, as 2000 reminded us all too well.
If Bernie needs an attack dog Agnew type VP candidate he could do a lot worse than presumptive Senate candidate Alan Grayson.
Barbara Lee! (for VP) She’s fantastic, from the west coast, very well aligned with Bernie, and oh, in case you don’t know, she’d not white. She used to be my Rep. when I lived in Oakland– her slogan was “Barbara Lee Speaks for Me!” and did she ever! I felt so fortunate to have a Rep. who was doing what I wanted– most of the time (you never get Everything, do you?) With Rep. Lee, you get geographical, gender & racial diversity, without diluting the issue stances—
Interesting point.
That would mean Sanders was committed to taking off the gloves and declaring class war to win the election. The establishment would have a meltdown.
I seriously doubt Bernie is radical enough to go that route, but if he does he needs to watch his back. In America public figures who too openly transgress sacred interests tend to wind up dead.
Guns are everywhere in American society, and it only takes one “deranged lunatic”…
Grayson is on the Hillary leadership team in Florida.
Sanders took the gloves off when he started running.
No, you’ll know Sanders has taken off the gloves when he’s pounding the podium with both firsts and screaming “Hang the rich!” into a battery of spittle flecked microphones.
I’m not being facetious. Those who favour the status quo have no incentive to compromise because they believe they hold all the high cards. That leaves the underdogs with no option but to keep upping the ante until their opponents either fold or (more likely) go all in.
And that’s when things will start to get interesting.
I agree, she can do a lot from the senate and it spreads out the power base
I’m not really sure that the issue of Massachusetts would be a prime consideration – it is important, but not the most important issue. First of all, choosing a prominent Dem female would be important to bring the ‘its a womans turn’ electorate into the fold. Secondly, if Cruz or Rubio are elected, Sanders health and age will be an issue. He must therefore have a VP who is obviously at his or her prime, and with the experience and ability to take over if something happened. He will also want someone who could carry his baton if he won and decided not to run after four years. And of course, he will need someone who will genuinely face down and destroy whatever crazy the Republicans find as VP candidate.
There isn’t a long list of people who fill that criteria who isn’t from a safe Dem State. Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii is the only one to come to mind, but I think she is too young and inexperienced, and she’s pretty right wing on some issues (not necessarily a bad thing electorally).
I don’t think Gabbard will be 35 until next April.
Exactly. HRC is not “a woman”. She’s a venal political operator who happens to be female. Ditto BO happens to be black, and has been observed many times (including by his friend Cornel West), that really hasn’t affected his actions much compared to his recent predecessors.
Agreed. A Warren endorsement of HRC and Warren’s credibility would never recover.
Nor should it…
Good post. I would argue that she has nothing to lose by endorsing Sanders IF he continues to gain traction. Neither Hilary nor the Senate Democratic leadership (Schumer, et al) will do her any favors. A “glass door” if you will. The Teachout example is instructive. The battle going on is for the control of the Democratic Party.
“she has nothing to lose by endorsing Sanders”
Look at it the other way round. What does Warren have to gain by ANY endorsement? Her credibility can hardly be improved, but it can be diminished.
What Warren needs is a guarantee of a position that moves from ankle biting the financial status quo, to being in a position of genuine authority over them. Since the Justice Department seems to have a veto by inaction over legal repercussions, perhaps that’s the place.
What does Warren have to gain by ANY endorsement?
If Warren endorses Sanders and Sanders wins the nomination, and probably the presidency, that would effectively be a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party, as Yves has repeatedly mentioned. Under President Sanders, Senator Warren would wield enormous clout and would likely see her preferred positions advance tremendously. If Clinton gets the nomination, Warren will be relegated to ankle-biting. This seems obvious to me. What am I missing?
If Warren endorses Sanders and Sanders wins the nomination, and probably the presidency, that would effectively be a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party
First of all there’s a strong possibility that faced with an imminent Sanders victory the party establishment will stage a palace coup on the floor of the convention to prevent the unthinkable from happening.
Second, even if Sanders is nominated, even if he actually wins the presidency, it won’t be a takeover of the party. The party establishment is unalterably opposed to Sanders on both personal and ideological grounds. They would rather lose the election that have to explain to their paymasters how such a infamous calamity could ever have been allowed to happen. They will work to defeat a Sanders presidential bid, and if they fail they will do everything in their power to undermine him from within and ensure that he’s a one term president. Sanders and his running mate will be isolated, impotent, and very lonely in Washington. One way or another they will eventually get rid of Sanders, and the party establishment will carry on.
In short the idea that simply getting a progressive nominated as the party’s presidential candidate is going to fundamentally altar the nature of the party is extremely naive. At the end of the day the party establishment’s first, last and overriding imperative is its own self preservation. Every other consideration – preserving the veneer of popular legitimacy in the nomination process, maintaining the facade of party unity, even winning the White House – is subordinate to that priority.
People like that are not going to go quietly into the night. Those that expect otherwise have seriously underestimated the monumental scale of the enterprise before them.
Look, you have to start somewhere, and starting with the presidency is pretty good. While all that you say about the corrupt Democratic Establishment is true, their hold on power is not immutable. In fact I’d say it’s tenuous. Why? Because the Democratic Establishment’s governing philosophy of neoliberalism is almost uniformly despised by the Democratic voters. Sanders’ astonishing success is just demonstrating that simple fact. The electorate generally, and Democratic leaners in particular, reject the basic tenets of neoliberalism, which is why the neoliberals almost try to hide their actions and disguise their intentions. They know the people oppose them.
If Sanders secures the nomination, the progressive forces will resume the march that Obama’s betrayals impeded. If economic progressivism proves to have overwhelming political success — as I think it will — then the politics within the Democratic Party will resolve itself accordingly. Right now, all the political power is with Wall Street and the corporatists, administered by their elected handmaidens, but that could change with unexpected rapidilty.
Bottom line. I could be wrong but maybe I’m right. And, personally, I’m happy to engage in a political war with the neoliberals. What we need is some other leaders and elected officials to step up, like Bernie Sanders is doing.
Please excuse typos.
Your points are well taken, I am just cautioning against excessive optimism in the event that Sanders beats all odds and actually wins the nomination.
I do not believe that the party establishment can or will change, they have far too much to lose. If a progressive insurgency is successful it will probably cause the party to split along the progressive-centrist divide.
It’s wrong to think the dems are libs and centrists- they are more like what the dems and reps used to be, and the reps today are so extreme as to be far off the cliff. If a progressive wins – even better with a large mandate – he will likely have coat tails, which would change power balances both between the parties and within the dems.
Then, prosecuting bankers would be wildly popular, likely even with the tea party… Midterms might even boost support.
But first, win the nomination… Warren has nothing to lose in supporting sanders, everything to gain, not least everything she’s been fighting for.
She should get treasury, Charlie crist, Fl, best Vp pic.
Yeah, Sanders winning the white house would do more than simply give a progressive executive power.
Many of us supporting Sanders understand that it will take more to challenge the neo-liberal power structure. But we will get a huge boost in confidence if we know that our collective power can elect presidents. If we can elect presidents together, then we can do more, and more, and more, and we won’t accomplish all of our goals in four years but we will make some gains that can be followed up on instead of being forced to win scattered, isolated battles with little bearing on overarching political or economic dynamics.
In which case, an E Warren endorsement at that point would totally expose the man behind the curtain. But, practically speaking, at that point there would be hardly anyone to vote for.
My mantra: Keep calm (as best you can), support Bernie, keep head down, hope for best. It is not as if we don’t know who the greater of two evils is.
Very little.
Good comment. Clinton seems willing to trash the reputation and brand of anyone and anything to advance her own interests, in my opinion. See: Iowa Caucus, MSM. Warren is smart not to endorse Clinton or Sanders and go about her work of challenging Wall St and the FIRE sector. That work doesn’t help Clinton.
I always expect to see some day a money bag stamped with the word Citigroup fall out of one of her pantsuit’s pockets as she makes her grand entrance across a stage. That woman is loaded with cash!
Good one!
Ya gotta love those pantsuits… *still chuckling*
What a great idea! Anybody out there in NC Land with Final Cut or After Effects expertise who could make a 30-second spot that would morph HRC’s Vera Wang suits into something worthy of NASCAR (with bankster logos instead oil filters, etc.) and post on YouTube or Vimeo? Bet it would go immediately viral in the 18-29 quadrants.
OMG, that is genius – really! Somebody has to create a meme with Hillary’s corporate income/sponsorship plastered all over her pantsuit; and the logos’s size must be proportional to to the amount of money.
I too hope Elizabeth Warren stays neutral on the primary, and also I hope she stays where she is in the Senate, where she can do the most good. She would be wasted as Vice president, and furthermore, there is no one remotely as capable and valuable to fill her vacated senate seat. You can’t put it past Massachusetts not to put a Republican pretty boy in there, recall her predecessor Scott Brown, and just look at the current Mass. Governor, palling around with Chris Christie. He could slide right into that seat unopposed.
That reminds me, when Charlie Baker was running for governor, his opponent was a Democratic woman, Attorney General Martha Coakley. Like Zephyr Teachout, she also found zero support from Hillary.
An ad featuring Jeanne Shaheen touting HRC has been playing here in NH for quite some time. It sickens me to the point I have to change the station or turn the radio off. I think it might be this one? I can only imagine how they (the mean girls) are pressuring Warren behind the scenes.
Oooooh. It took me a while to work thru this one (and it’s only 55 secs long), but I will report so you don’t have to look at it if you don’t want…
1.) pic of boats and stuff in a river. Nice river, I would vote fo9r it.
2.) pic of a pointy-topped building. State capitol? I am not from NH so don’t recog, you may…
3.)”Mean Jeanne” endorses “… my friend, Hillary Clinton, for president.”
4.) (Shots of cheering crowds)
5.) “Women are standing with Hillary because Hillary is standing with women.” (much blah blah, mostly vague and largely disputable)
6.) “She is our champion, and she is our friend!” Well, alright then.
Thank you! You have a strong stomach! I think I had listened to it once in the car, but from then on every time it comes on I change it. Once was enough. I was so disgusted, and I felt kind of insulted.
Also reading tonight how Madeleine Albright said today that there’s a special place in hell for women that don’t support other women-meaning women that don’t support Clinton. Really horrible stuff, and ironic coming from that one.
Cheers!
Warren has been under pressure since she was brought onto COP to support the establishment. I think she’ll be fine. Plus, outside of her area of banking/finance/economics, she is basically an establishment perspective. She’s not some lefty peacenik tree hugger pushing for revolution. She’s a moderate Republican who does not oppose the national security state who became noteworthy in Democratic circles because she stuck to reality-based exploration (Two Income Trap and all) as the two political parties moved into the fantasyland of authoritarianism and just outright lying to the public about everything. Expecting her to be some leftist luminary is like expecting Michael Jordan to be a civil rights activist. Just not who they are.
What has been interesting to me with the Clinton campaign specifically is how it has really diminished the credibility of third party groups by playing the identify politics card so hard. For example, Emily’s List made a hilarious endorsement of her that called into question the priorities and value of the entire organization.
Which is the great benefit of Sanders running regardless of whether he wins or loses. He is revealing more clearly the rift in the party between those who genuinely advocate for the public good and those who are just charlatans for power that the pundit class has been trying to keep quiet. This does show some good news culturally on the gender front; we have made enough progress in battling sexism that women can now join men in screwing over Americans who identify as male, female, and everything else. Equal Opportunity Authoritarianism.
We could not possibly see a cabinet until after the primaries, serious people (and I mean *real* ones) cannot take the risk until Hillary is vanquished. The Clintons are vindictive. But Sen Sanders has certainly been thinking about it; wouldn’t you, in his shoes?
Dream team…
Me, I’d like to see Sen Warren as AG, or maybe Bill Black. Prosecutions, oh yeah!
Treasury, Hudson or Skelton.
Who for environment? I believe that that is crucial. Speaker, that is, next in line should Sanders and VP are assassinated? Yes, it could very well happen. Paul Ryan? In that case *any* Democrat in the House is better than none. Well, most likely.
Who for Labor? Housing? Defense? *HUGE* diffs could be made with these appts, even if the Sec’s had to explain that they could not implement Pres policies because of obstruction from stay-behind bureaucrats and the Pentagon.
Warren could end the nonsense by endorsing Sanders. The fact that she hasn’t even though Warren and Sanders are so aligned on policy speaks very poorly of the Democratic Party and the Clinton Machine, as this article illustrates. But it also speaks poorly of Warren herself for succumbing to that pressure. Show some courage, Senator! Plus, at this point, it is conceivable that Sanders could win, and also plausible that a Warren endorsement could be just the boost Sanders needs. Warren campaigned around the country for a lot of Democratic Senators and she is famous and powerful and would be a spectacular surrogate for Sanders. OTOH: If Warren does endorse Clinton, and assuming Clinton secures the nomination, that will effectively destroy the Democratic Party because young people and progressives will depart in droves. If Warren stays neutral … well, how can a progressive Democratic senator like Warren be neutral in the battle for the soul of the party?
It’s probably better for her that she doesn’t endorse anyone. This way, she holds a great deal more leverage.
Warren has a job. She’s a Senator, one of my senators. Right now, she’s got some sway as a senator because the vast array of Clinton supporters in the Senate don’t want to push her into the hands of Sanders. The minute she declares for Sanders they will turn on her like a pack of wolves. This will vitiate her ability to function in that body completely. So the longer she waits, the stronger her position in the Senate is and the more likely her intervention will be decisive. So holding out to endorse Sanders helps Warren do her job now and gives her a chance to strategically pick her spot. This is just sound political calculation, and we on the Left could use a little of that and a lot less posturing.
Agree. The senior senator from mass. She could also be an heir apparent, due to her neutral standing, of the DNC if the internal power struggles reach a level where there is an outright insurgency.
I think she’s a lot more clever, and playing a longer game, than most seem to realize.
Posturing? I presented a reasonable basis for my view. You may disagree but it isn’t posturing.
As for your own view, you appear to assume that Warren will endorse Sanders but that, according to you, she is wisely waiting. What evidence do you have that Warren will ever endorse Sanders? Also, what do you think the optimal time for that endorsement is?
As for Warren’s senate colleagues getting pissed at her for endorsing Sanders? Tough. That’s life in the big leagues. Nothing will boost Warren’s professed policy goals more than Sanders securing the Democratic nomination. Now that Sanders has almost singlehandedly made his remarkable candidacy viable, it’s time for some others to step up and help, and quite possibly, propel Sanders into the nomination. That’s what Warren — my senator, too — should be thinking about now, not the so-called colleagues who oppose almost everything she wants.
Yes, she should be thinking about it, as you say–and acting when it is most propitious. She picks the wrong horse too early and anything she wants to accomplish in the Senate is history.
I’d say three or four days before Super Tuesday would be her best bet to get the most out of her endorsement.
I’d say three or four days before Super Tuesday would be her best bet to get the most out of her endorsement.
Sounds great to me! If it doesn’t happen, however, please anticipate a follow-up discussion.
All of the good arguments above lead me to bet that she stays out of the primary contest altogether.
Dante reserved a special place for those who refused to choose: they don’t even get the satisfaction of being in Hell, excluded from eternity.
That said, this is politics, and Sanders is not running to be the great independent candidate but as the candidate for the Democratic Party, which means, for better or for worse, he’s invested in its continued existence, even if he wants to fundamentally reshape it.
If he wants to do that, he will need allies embedded within the party who can support him, and Warren is someone who could act later as a bridge between Sanders and the more Hillary gung ho representatives, if she stays out of the way, as they seem to want. Also, her real neutrality is an open question. The very same day Sanders called out Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs in a speech in NH, Warren gave a speech in the well of the senate, where not only did she make a very similar argument, she framed that argument in exactly the same way Sanders did. When Lloyd attacked Sanders on CNBC over his comments, Warren struck back at Lloyd, thereby implicitly defending him. I don’t see Warren going out of her way to strike back at Clinton’s detractors.
tl;dr – while Warren has not publicly endorsed Sanders, her public behavior since the beginning of the primaries has shown her to be far from completely neutral.
Fair points. But I think the horse belongs before the cart:
Warren is someone who could act later as a bridge between Sanders and the more Hillary gung ho representatives, if she stays out of the way, as they seem to want.
The goal is to win and Sanders now appears to have a viable chance to do that. If Sanders wins the nomination, aided by Warren’s supoort, I suspect that he and Warren will find plenty of new friends in the Democratic Party. And those who try to Corbyn Sanders can get wiped out at the polls. That’s how the hostile takeover will work, by seizing power, not by begging for it. IMNSHO, of course.
Yeah, but who will they get wiped out by? There are only a couple of D congressional candidates in place who could reasonably be expected to be Sanders allies. Who to vote for? Republicans — bullet, meet foot. Green, maybe, but who knows if they will ally with Sanders? Most places have not seen any enduring Green presence, although I like both Jill and Margaret alot.
Sen Warren is, and Sen Sanders as well, are in a difficult situation here. They must be both transparent and keep their powder dry, and we do not have a clue if they will he usu Dem thing of losing battles with a warehouse full of dry powder. I fervently hope (that word!) that they are conducting an insurgency in full view of the DNC, the Dem establishment and Hillary supporters. If that is so, we will see some differences if/when Bernie wins the primary.
I think we will just have to depend on what we know of the character of the people involved. I remember the Clinton’s ‘support’ of Ned Lamont, “You just wait here, we’ll get back to you…” and they never did.
The Clintons have been Clintons as long as Bernie has been Bernie. Track records, I compare them. T
Here’s my view. Should the Democrats run on a platform of economic populism with Bernie Sanders as the nominee, I think they will succeed wildly. I think they will pummel the Republicans just as Obama did in 2008 when people erroneously believed Obama was progressive. Much to my surprise, the American people have not crawled into the fetal position after Obama’s demoralizing betrayals and assaults. We have kept hope alive and are still clamoring for the change Obama deceitfully promised to deliver. As is typically the case, young people are the vanguard and, as success begets success (absent an Obama-esque betrayal), new progressive candidates will emerge rapidly if Sanders secures the Democratic nomination. Maybe I’m wrong about the possibility of genuine change if Sanders beats Clinton but I’m pretty damn sure about the converse: if Clinton is the Denocratic nominee, then progressivism is dead for another 8 years, at least. And, IMO, that’s 8 years we can’t afford to waste.
If progressive candidates are to emerge and get support in the wake of either a Sanders or Clinton victory, Wasserman-Schultz will have to be kicked to the curb and replaced with a DNC head who will actively recruit electable progressive or at least strong economic populist candidates (similar to Warren). Since Howard Dean was kicked to the curb and replaced by the neo-liberal likes of Tim Kaine and Wasserman-Schultz, all the Dems have had to show for it was the loss of Democratic majorities (by design to appeal to corporate benefactors?). For the left or at least main street economic focused dems to start exerting stronger influence in the party, they need to push for a new head who would hopefully enact a 50 state strategy of sorts to find talented congressional candidates that aren’t beholden to the 1% so that a President like Sanders isn’t a toothless tiger if he gets in, nor a President like Clinton given total power to cater to the interests of the plutocrats.
Ding-oh! But this is a two-part thing, Tim Canova (see also ActBlue and/or Down with Tyranny for details) is primarying DWS, if he can win that would be the curb-kicking, then who, oh who would be named speaker in her place? Need more Dems of any sort to pull that off, or Paul Ryan is Pres.
That one is difficult to contemplate.
Vote, as they say, early and often, and as the Supreme Court ruled, one dollar, one vote.
Other currently-running Dems who are (or at least claim to be) Bernie-friendly are here.
Agree that many of Warren’s recent statements sound like Bernie could have made them.
Maybe there’s more than one way to skin the endorsement cat.
I also wonder whether, at some point, the lack of a Warren endorsement of clinton becomes an implied endorsement of Bernie. clinton is making the case that this election presents a historic opportunity to elect the first woman president, yet one of the most popular and respected female senators refuses to jump on the bandwagon.
clinton surrounds herself with OTHER female senators like mcCaskill (senator from Ferguson) and stabenow (senator from Flint). When these women appear on stage with clinton, it only emphasizes Warren’s absence and refusal to endorse. And, at least as far as I’m concerned, is demonstrative of the type of female politician who supports clinton……and who DOESN’T.
Anyone who’s paying attention knows that Warren and Bernie have very similar views on the causes and consequences of income inequality, and Warren continues to make statements that closely track Bernie’s. Perhaps her endorsement silence is not as silent as it seems.
Used to live in Missouri. McCaskill is odious.
Thank god she isn’t running.
I tend to think she is running. For VP.
McCaskill is an interesting case herself. She was part of the wave retaking Congress in 2006 against Senator Talent, running explicitly on things like raising the minimum wage, in a context of other hot button issues of the time like stem cell research (remember the brouhaha about Rush Limbaugh and Michael J Fox?). She was under immense pressure to endorse Hillary in 2007. She didn’t. She went in early for some Senator from Illinois, and she stuck with him through the whole primary, general, and into things like the healthcare debates.
Not saying Obama is better policy-wise, but it was a big deal that a Midwestern female Senator was an Obama supporter, not a Clinton supporter.
I would add that the Clinton cohort of senators is delusional if they think one of the possible options is a full throated endorsement by Warren while the primary is still being actively contested. Their best option is her official neutrality AND she avoids going out of her way to speak on issues brought up in the campaign. Next best is what’s going on right now, and after that we having officially endorsing Sanders.
And the reasons for it are, to my mind, pretty obvious. None of these senators puts her reputation on the line to defend Warren’s actions in the Senate, why should she risk eviscerating her own to benefit them/Clinton? Gillebrand is a possible exception to this characterization, but I can imagine Warren is a little wary of “play along, we’ll thank you later” politics after Obama was unwilling to nominate her as director of the CFPB, even though she created it.
Yes. What is the phrase, “significant by it’s absence”?
Your description of the quandary for Sen. Warren rings true to me. The Democratic Party is certainly in a fight for its existence. The challenges facing all of us are monumental.
There is today no proxy for one’s own morality and principles. Sen. Warren is not a proxy for me. I don’t require her to endorse Bernie Sanders. If she endorses Hillary Clinton, then she has published to me where her principles lay.
In my view, it is time each of us takes a stand in this political season and going forward.
Massachusetts votes on Super Tuesday, March 1, along with 12 other states (not counting Republican caucuses). I expect Warren to endorse Sanders after he wins New Hampshire.
Does anyone have the nerve to write a semi-serious Op-Ed saying, “Hey, I’m a Jew–it’s high time we had a Jew as President. I’m voting for Bernie and can’t see how any self-respecting Jew isn’t.”
How would the feminists ultras answer that one? What would Gloria Steinem say?!?
Cute idea. But Jewish voters are at most 3-4% of the electorate; women account for more than half.
That’s an interesting point, but let’s not draw a false equivalency. Jews are certainly oppressed in the U.S. (stereotyped and “invisible” to the dominant “Christian” culture) and certainly deserving of being treated without the double standard, so don’t take this the wrong way, but Jews are an oppressed minority while women are an oppressed majority. I don’t believe that ranking oppressions has much, if any, utility, but one can understand why something that directly harms over half the population could take precedence over something that directly harms a small portion. (I say ‘directly’ because I am aware that anti-Semitism, like sexism, harms the entire society, not just the ostensible target group.) Anyway, I don’t consider myself a “feminists ultra” but that is how I would respond.
I wasn’t talking oppression, I was talking identity politics. Jews pretty decisively self-identify as Jews, even if, like Sanders, they are not religious. Again, I’m not endorsing this plan, merely saying that what’s good for the gander is good for the goose.
There is no professional “Jewish” class. Julian Bond told students to amid his stream of consciousness and complaints about young people lacking taste that King wasn’t referring to white people when he said “white moderates” but the black church and the ministers who’s power would be threatened by citizen empowerment. Elected leaders, businessmen, doctors, etc. would replace ministers. The minjsters couldnt denounce civil rights for obvious reasons, but they could call for peace in our time.
Hillary and her “feminist” Cadre are facing the reality of over 40 years worth of women having been born since Title IX. Amy Wambach, a lesbian, Mia Hamm, a Tarheel (is there anything worse), and Serena Williams are huge celebrities. Obviously equality isn’t here, but women under 40 have been raised in a different society in schools. A women succeeding isn’t relevant to younger women because women succeed. From my own experiences, I remember young Democratic women who had no regard for the nominally pro-choice Republican women from Maine. There was no sense of pride in their accomplishments.
I suppose there is AIPAC, but they went all in with the evangelicals.
AIPAC is more Zionist than Jewish. Judaism is a religion while Zionism is a political philosophy. And all those Evangelicals are also Zionists.
Steinem has endorsed Clinton.
I’ve long admired Steinem’s work and writing. In this case, however, I can only think of ‘old generals forever fighting the last war.’ The world isn’t what it was 40 years ago. Steinem deserves credit for helping change that world. But I think she’s still ‘fighting the last war.’
I think she wants recognition much like MLK gets, but MLK made significant decisions on what the civil rights movement should achieve and shaped it’s character. Steinem was a good voice, but I don’t think she did anything that was as credible as the women who went to work in the war time factories. Rosa Parks wasn’t waiting on a female liberation. Her refusal to get up was a carefully orchestrated plot, and she played the part. She was a wheeler and dealer, a powerful woman shaping society and putting movement ahead of personal recognition. To most people, she’s a little old lady who had enough, but she was a brilliant operator and boycott leader.
Steinem helped reach young women as they came of age, but her organizations were lacking. Did she ever say anything as relevant as Harriet Tubman? Did she set a moral course? No. Reading her “boy crazy” remarks, Steinem thinks she’s owed.
I agree with most of what you say, with this exception:
Steinem put paid to the right’s then circulating meme that only ‘ugly, frumpy women or man haters’ were feminists. Steinem’s writing and person were a culturally important push back against the rights attempted cultural smears of feminist. It was important for young women to see that smear as a lie. Steinem was in her person the very refutation.
Gloria Steinem, in explaining why young women prefer Sanders, told Bill Maher that women get more “radical” as they get older, saying “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie.” So condescending, so out of touch.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gloria-steinem-bernie-sanders_us_56b63c95e4b04f9b57d9d69a
Seeing her on Maher, she looks great, but yes, that statement was so condescending, as if women couldn’t have good policy position reasons for supporting Sanders.
Come on, what’s with this myth of presidents hard at work? both Bush W. and Obama are famous for the lavish and lengthy vacations they’ve taken on the tax payers dime. I seriously doubt that Obama does much other than light fundraising and giving his knee pads a workout with his “donors” on those few occasions he’s not actively vacationing.
Not that I’m supporting Bernie at all, but he does seem to be in good health–and being president certainly seems like it would to less exerting physically and less emotionally draining than being a Walmart greeter.
Easy rule of thumb: If Debbie Stab-me-now is for something, you should be against it. Statistically, you’d be better off far more often than the other way around.
My understanding of events is that HRC has a long sit-down with Warren before announcing her run. Bernie had been trying to get Warren to run but after that sit-down with Clinton she decided against it. What was said? That’s what I’d like to know. Was the meeting friendly or were there threats?
As to Bernies health, I was stunned to see that after he flew back from the Iowa caucuses that there were some 500 people there to greet him. He stopped and made a speech. The man has endurance and I’m sure he could beat HRC in a run around the block, or even just down the street. Let’s not forget his 9 hour filibuster. His mind is sharp and could live to 100 or more even imho.
TedWa, he looked in great condition/energised when I saw him last month. Was fairly close to the stage.
The early rallies around the country instead of hitting Iowa and New Hampshire, even S.C., were brilliant for protecting Sanders health. Sanders became a celebrity candidate and doesn’t have to shake every hand and kiss every baby in small spaces much like Hillary.
I’m astonished by what Reagan did in 1980.
Bernie released his health records. Everything checked out. Waiting to see if Hillary will release her health records.
update: I see Hillary has released her medical records also.
The billary hillbillies pirate crew must be worried they will not be in a power postion come 2017…warren needs to catch the flu or flu like symptoms for a few weeks and take a mini vacation at the hospital so she can “pass” on the ” opportunity” to make hillary the first female dictator of america…because as mentioned heellary(as in heel) has never shown any interest in making sure there are any female first anything…the goldwater girls roots are showing…hmmm speaking of crazy barry…has she ever been asked why she was a goldwater girl by anyone ?
If one were running a guerilla campaign…having supporters counter rally by holding goldwater for president signs around hillary would be fun
I dont play nice…
Identity politics. Debate over Hillary and feminism parallels debate in African American community.Good quote from Barbara Smith, a gay African American, from an essay in Ishmael Reed’s “MultiAmerica.”
“Being in structural opposition to the status quo because of one’s identity . . . is quite different from being consciously and actively opposed to the status quo because one is a radical and understands how the system works.” (page 285). What is the status quo Hillary feminists oppose? How would electing her as opposed to a republican woman change the life of the woman who cleans her office?
The office would have a more prestigious address?
As a mind who sees on the TV what people like myself will get to see: MSNBC and Bravo, meaning I get to watch some news and my wife gets to watch her shows, I know that Sanders can’t win unless Warren comes in now as his running mate.
I’m sick of him saying he respects Hillary Rodham Clinton. I think he was just raised to be nice to women. I remember he let those women from Black Lives Matter just have the stage.
I’m sick of him, or anyone else letting Hillary Rodham Clinton go on with this fiction that she gets things done. She did no better than Bush and Cheney far as Libya is concerned. Maybe sitting with President Obama and watching Osama Bin Laden get shot in real time makes her think she got something done.
No one with any common sense at all can believe that she won’t let Goldman Sachs in the Oval Office if she is elected. It is simply ridiculous for her to insist 650 thousand dollars for “speeches” is somehow one way. What did they hear in these speeches anyway?
The North East and its thought leaders, the experts, do not know the whole of this nation. Even FOX would have to cover Sanders and Warren, and their Generals? what of the Experts there?
The battlefield is TV Land.
Sanders has the Wilsonian stiff neck and hasn’t grown up enough to ditch Socialism for New Deal Democrat. Warren is tough enough and smart enough to fix him. His predilection for being nice to women would mean he’d have to be nice to Elizabeth Warren.
I live in North Carolina. NC may as well stand for Not Conscious. Nobody here is comfortable thinking for themselves. If Warren was running with Sanders the Democratic Party would be confused till told Sanders will die and Warren will be President.
Gender and racial politics are a gift to the corporate rulers when it comes to shifting the vote just enough away from any political revolution that will give any honor to the working class if Hillary Clinton wins on fantasies, lies and image.
Good enough, a Black man, Good enough a woman?
“What we need is a Political Revolution.” Sanders says, and he is correct. Martial law will crush any violent revolution.
Warren would make all the difference, and we are all running out of time for good enough.
I don’t know if it really matters …. But I would like to see Sander’s VP come from another part of the country.
Why?
Clinton-Gore and Bush-Cheney did okay. Gore-Liebermann and Kerry-Edwards had regional balance.
You forgot — Bush-Cheney didn’t win the election and Gore-Liebermann didn’t lose, the former were installed. BTW anyone who thinks this election could overthrow the corporate/bankster coup is delusional. And Warren wants to stay alive.
Use the election to begin to chip away at the Corporate Banker junta bit by bit. A home run swing at a total overthrow is more likely to be viciously crushed. Incrementally chip the blocks away until the iceberg falls apart and into the sea.
I wasn’t thinking about election viability so much nominating a VP from a state thate might illustrate the popularity of his platform all over the country.
I don’t know who that would be.
It would be an incredibly beautiful thing to see Bernie Sanders ask Elizabeth Warren to run as his Vice President. I think the country would get over its regionalism with such a powerful combination.
I just don’t think it matters. Half the population of the South isn’t Southern. Those Western states voted for Massachusetts Governor Mittens. Netflix is the same everywhere. Pop culture has been so homogenized and available for so long, authenticity won’t be achieved through regional appeals.
Admittedly, Sanders has to nominate a woman because c’mon, but it doesn’t matter if she has a Southern drawl or is a world traveler. It will be Sanders versus GOP.
With very few exceptions, the VP can only hurt. Now, I would like to see a “younger” woman, but other than that, she can’t be a crook.
The relative cultural homogeneous nature of the U.S. currently is why Clinton writing off New Hampshire and Iowa is insane as quirky white people insane. The other states aren’t as foreign as they use to be.
Ah, but one moment. Bernie does not agree w Lady McClinton, he merely does not challenge her directly on the stage. The *audience* does the next step. Bernie’s hands remain clean, and nothing is more convincing than a conclusion that one has come to on one’s own. He rails against Republicans for doing this or that (which HRC has done in spades her own self) and the viewers connect the dots.
We are watching a master politician in action. There may be no blood, but there will be bodies.
Nothing these days is totally political logic for campaigns. It would be an incredibly beautiful thing to see Bernie Sanders ask Elizabeth Warren to run as his Vice President. I think the country would get over its regionalism with such a powerful combination.
Hillary Clinton supported Cuomo against a progressive woman with a real chance to win, Zephyr Teachout.
and yet Madame Secretary Albright claims
“Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” MK Albright
I think the odious Mme Albright is correct. She and Hillary will probably meet there.
So all women will end in hell?
Actually under the set of definitions I’ve heard, I cannot believe there are many candidates for heaven.
And the Christian Hell has to be exothermic (is getting hotter), because of the volume of new arrivals. I suspect the Nordic version of hell has the incorrect thermodynamic model.
Also worth note is how Sen Gillibrand didn’t do squat to help Zephyr Teachout with her “Off The Sidelines” initiative to elect more Democratic women into office.
EW should make a highly publicized feminist speech about independent mindedness and back BS for xyz reasons. Her reasons. Then he should pick her for VP, which she should accept. She should then go on to redefine the role of VP the way HRC redefined the role of FLOTUS.
Solves many problems. No need to natter on endlessly, lest the American liberal-left turn into an excuse for bigots to politely rehearse their racism and misogyny under the sign of “class solidarity.” This doesn’t sound like a winning electoral strategy to me. Or much of anything else either. I mean, seriously. Just forget it.
Naturally, they’ll need to bring in their own administration. Hopefully President Warren is busy working on this.