General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is there trolling going on here in regards to Obama? Like [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)1. She has "it," that special ability to connect to an audience when she speaks. I personally think she is more electable than Hillary who, perhaps unfairly, seems cold when she speaks to a crowd or even on TV. Hillary tries to project warmth and the affection that she probably feels for people, but there is something overly cerebral in her public persona. Probably not there if you know her in person. So I think on this superficial but absolutely decisive issue, Warren is a better bet.
2. Hillary has an incredible amount of baggage. Her husband's mistakes, some of which seemed to be good ideas at the time but which worked to the detriment of the American people, especially those who lost their homes in the crisis that began around 2008. I've written about the many bills Bill Clinton signed that would make campaign fodder for the Republicans in 2016.
3. I remember wearing my Stevenson pins when I was in grade school. Repeat candidacies are not a good idea. Hillary is liked now and up in the polls because people recognize her name. They could be very bored with her by 2016. It's really hard to have an exciting campaign once you have lost big. And 2008 was a big loss for Hillary.
4. Hillary's vote for the Iraq War demonstrated to me that she is not careful enough and does not have good judgment and is afraid to go against the crowd. We need a strong president. Warren is quite willing to take an unpopular stance and persuade people and patiently wait until they join her opinion. Hillary is not good at that.
5. Hillary's voice is a problem although it is better than it was in 2008. Lacks warmth. That is not something people talk about a lot. I don't suppose there is much research on it. But I think that Obama's great voice is one of the reasons he won in 2008. Obama's voice is at the same time dry reflecting a sense of humor, patient, warm and most important, genuinely strong. He has a nearly perfect voice. Your voice is as important as your appearance. I can't picture Hillary singing really well. I'm sure that Obama could although he may not. Gore's speech and voice were a problem for him. Warren is ahead of Hillary when it comes to voice. Same for laugh. Hillary sometimes has a very scornful laugh. People pick that up on a very deep, emotional, subconscious level. I don't know whether Hillary could change her voice.
6. Then there is the big issue of the potential candidates' stance on the middle class. Warren's work on bankruptcy law (if you have read her book A Fighting Chance you will know this story) has given her a genuine insight and emotional connection to the problems of the middle class. That's me and most voters. The Clintons were once close to their middle class roots. Clinton's famous feeling our pain statement made him a lot of friends. The Clintons -- it's not their money or their fancy lives, the lifts on private planes, etc. Warren probably gets some of those advantages too. It's that Warren's life work has been studying the financial struggles of the middle class. That's her topic. She just has a mind for economics combined with a love of people. Hillary doesn't have that. And that is what we need now.
7. Warren conveys more of a sense of what she is about than Hilary does. This is especially important when it comes to who they are willing to offend. Warren is willing to offend the very rich even if she herself has a lot of money. She asks them the embarrassing questions, the questions Americans want asked. Hillary flatters the rich. How do I know that? Because the rich pay her money to give speeches at their events. They would not do that to someone who asked them embarrassing questions.
8. Warren relates better to labor. That's a Democrat. Hillary is not as strong on this point.
9. Warren can EXPLAIN COMPLEX IDEAS EASILY AND CLEARLY. All those years facing off with bored law students in bankruptcy classes. Can you imagine anything that develops your ability to explain things succinctly and clearly better than teaching (boring) bankruptcy law? She demonstrated this talent when she appeared on Jon Stewart's show. Blew me away. I couldn't believe how she boiled things down -- simple language -- without arrogance.
10. No way you can accuse Warren of being an elitest. From Oklahoma. Parents relatively poor and working class. Early marriage. Early divorce. Junior college. Pulled herself up by her bootstraps with the kind of help from her family that ordinary, middle class people give their families. She struggled and she has not forgotten. Contrast with Hillary who attended an elite undergraduate school and went from there into eventually the governor's office and the White House. Both women are intelligent. But Warren's story is a bit more compelling than Hillary's.
At the same time, if we Democrats want the candidate whose personal history and experience best qualifiy him for the job, we will go with Bernie Sanders. Time will tell whether he is electable. But when it comes to experience. Boy, he has it. He has been in the Senate a good long time and is as smart as they come.
So that is how I see it at this point. I could change my mind, but you can see my thinking and my reactions to the potential candidates.
I especially do not like the close ties of the Clintons with the Pete Peterson crowd. Pete Peterson is an avowed enemy of Social Security. I and a lot of people my age have to rely on Social Security for our income. Hanging around with the Peterson crowd is a big pirates flag, a red flag, a danger signal for me. That's got the nastiest side of Wall Street written all over it. And the Clintons appear to be really "in" with the Peterson bunch. Not good. Really ugly.