http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/24/clinton-or-warren-in-2016 Comments On: Clinton or Warren in 2016? by Eli Sanders en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 15:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:19:02 -0800 The Stranger Posted by lolorhone]]> Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:21:06 -0800 The Stranger

Posted by dirac]]> Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:42:49 -0800 The Stranger Posted by lolorhone]]> Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:15:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by nothing will prevent this]]> Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:26:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by plus Reps hate her guts]]> Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:20:45 -0800 The Stranger
The Cherokee Tribe uses lineal descent for tribal citizenship. Anyone on the rolls during Dawes and their descendents should be considered Cherokee citizens. Warren has no such ancestor.

Brown was a complete dick for being a racist in the process of campaigning against Warren. He used ugly, mocking anti-Indian jabs to make fun of Indians in the process of trying to make Warren look bad, however, the fact of the matter is that an individual person has no right to claim tribal affiliation of a tribe that doesn't claim them. It is the absolute right of every single tribe to establish who is a citizen of their tribe.

Since most people can afford to remain intentionally ignorant of all things Native American, the pretenders get away with it.

I'm the furthest away from republican that you can be so the "republican talking points" jab doesn't work. How about liberals learn to think for themselves instead of blindly adhering to people just because they get all squirmy squealy excited about their latest shiny progressive? That she has skeletons is a reality. It is a reality she brought on herself. Ignoring it is stupid. Telling others who notice that they are lemmings is moronic.

I dread the day that she does run and the republican machine employs the racism again. Native people end up being the punch line for a regular old Okie.
Posted by lauramae]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:48:17 -0800 The Stranger Posted by EricaP]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:41:22 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Rotten666]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:25:19 -0800 The Stranger
There's 2 basic scenarios for 2016:

1) Obama executes his strategy, everything's basically on-track, and what the country will need is a feel-good president. Think 1960 or 2000.

2) Some huge disaster, like a lost military confrontation, has people scared, and what the country will want is a strong president. Think 1968.

In case #1, I want Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. She'll be 49 on Election Day 2016, her two boys will be 10 and 7, she is beautiful, her husband is handsome and rich and British, and they could give JFK and Jackie a run for their money. Hillary Clinton's role there is to bring experience and gravitas to the ticket, while going all-in on women leading the nation. Gillibrand/Clinton 2016.

In case #2, the Democrats will be in trouble. Every electoral vote will count, and for that reason I'll want Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. A Virginian starts with an awesome map -- 255 electoral votes and five independent paths to 270 -- and we will need that advantage. We'll also need to shore up Wisconsin and not disappoint women, so probably Senator Tammy Baldwin for veep. Kaine/Baldwin 2016.

On down the line, if it's Gillibrand/Clinton 2017-2025, then I'm hoping for an epic battle in 2024 between Cory Booker of New Jersey, who will likely run for and win Lautenberg's Senate seat in 2014, and either Julian or Joaquin Castro of Texas. If Julian Castro becomes president in 2025, it'll provide a nice symmetry, first black president followed by first female president followed by first Latino president. If there are any Republican heads left to be exploded, then a "President Castro" should do it.

By 2032 Generation X will be passing out of national affairs. Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who will be 51 on Election Day 2032, could be the first president from the Millenial Generation, as well as the second female president, the first female veteran, and the first Hindu president.
Posted by rationaland]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:16:00 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Cato the Younger Younger]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:36:11 -0800 The Stranger
Right now, I want Clinton to run, and I think she would win. I say this as a big lefty who thinks she (and even more her husband) are way too far to the right. But this is a center-left country on a good day, and a center-right one the rest of the time. If a real progressive can win and govern effectively, he or she will have to have once-in-a-generation charisma. Warren doesn't have that.

I am concerned about Hillary's age, but less so than if she were a man. Women do much better than men into their 70s, in my experience.

Now, if she doesn't run, I really start to hope that Warren can find a way to put together a winning campaign in short order. Because while I like Biden personally, I think he's too old and too established to make either a good candidate or a good president. And there's nobody else. Not yet.
Posted by Cascadian]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:47:16 -0800 The Stranger
By all means, work to expand voting by the poor and downtrodden. But, you know, there are people who are in positions of great power and authority who are working twice as hard to disenfranchise them. Check out Jon Husted, Secretary of State of Ohio. Check out Florida. You're not going to beat those people with more compassionate (or more logical, or more intelligent, or more anything) policy positions.

I swear, too many Democrats don't understand that they even have enemies.

Look, I think Warren is terrific. If I lived in Massachusetts, I would have voted for her. If she gets nominated, I'll vote for her (and then drink myself to death before the inauguration of her opponent and his new filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate and House). But she's too liberal.

And she's too old. Even if she was able to rally a working-class revival around her, which is what she needs to do, she's not going to be able to move it forward. She's already HAD a career. She's eligible for Social Security now; in four years she'll be 67. How many 67-year-old kickboxers do you know?

Posted by Fnarf]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:31:12 -0800 The Stranger
This unaccountable political process that has risen up inside Washington is a malignancy on our country. The Tea Party (fascism) is just one symptom. Can you people seriously not feel the popular anger out there? Is Seattle that much of a bubble that the status quo seems sustainable?
Posted by Tent_Liberation_Army]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:22:43 -0800 The Stranger Posted by sarah70]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:47:41 -0800 The Stranger
You know who would fucking cream in his tailored suit over a Warren candidacy? Mark Rubio. Good thing the one thing the current cynical Dem leadership cares about is winning.
Posted by Westside forever]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:46:04 -0800 The Stranger
Also, why are you incapable of talking about politics as anything but an extended sports metaphor? Is that some kind of disability I should be ashamed of pointing out in public? Because it strikes me as sociopathic if not.
Posted by Tent_Liberation_Army]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:37:19 -0800 The Stranger
That's why someone like Chris Christie is a threat. He's positioned; he could still screw it up, or turn out to be too weak, but he's in the pivot point. If he can do a turn on immigration, he can win. If he can't, they are indeed screwed, maybe forever. Fingers crossed!

The Democrats are in a more difficult position in a way, because they don't have anything to push against. They're already in. They're going to have to run against the Republican House -- a ripe target but a difficult one. They also need to keep the shameless Republican voter suppression in the forefront of people's minds.

@36, if your politics isn't about winning, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution, no matter how "admirable" you think you are. "Admirable" gets eaten alive; "Admirable" gets you Nixon and Reagan and Bush. The best thing Clinton has going for her is she's a mean fighter. I don't expect her to get the nomination but I hope she's on the side of the one who does.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:18:40 -0800 The Stranger
If immigration reform fails to happen (and I'd give it 50/50 at this point) then the Dems win 2016, period. Maybe even the House too, as the GOP approaches the limits of gerrymandering and voter suppression.

The GOP just reelected the exact same leadership to the RNC that lost them the last election. They have not learned a thing.
Posted by Corydon]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:57:17 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:56:07 -0800 The Stranger
Yes, I understand, "the lesser of two evils." But can you at least stop pretending that Clinton is admirable? How many lies does one have to tell, how many innocent lives must one destroy before one stops qualifying as "admirable?"

I guess, in politics, the sky's the limit.
Posted by LJM]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:49:19 -0800 The Stranger
@5, 2024? Warren will be 75 in 2024.

@32, allow me to introduce you to my friends. They're called "voters". Why don't you ask them how they feel about Elizabeth Warren.

And get back to me when your potential candidate isn't in his or her seventies, either now or by the time the term ends. You want someone who is ten or twenty years younger than Warren -- and someone who has won more than one fight.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:34:20 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:28:01 -0800 The Stranger

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:22:07 -0800 The Stranger
Why do you think Elizabeth Warren is too extreme to win the White House? Is it her eloquent compassion for the poor and disappearing middle class (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S… Her support of womens' and gay rights? Those aren't extremist positions, my friend. We have the highest level of income inequality since the Great Depression, which our current lesser of two evils has done nothing t address. Not supporting gay and womens' rights are actually the fringe positions at this point. If I were you, I'd question who is really in the bubble.

This is what makes me sick about liberals. It's already time to abandon conviction before we've even selected leaders. Why would we expect anything but the mess we're in with this attitude?
Posted by Tent_Liberation_Army]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:16:05 -0800 The Stranger