Someone at the NY Times has a serious girl-crush on Elizabeth Warren

The honest answer is that Democrats can nominate candidates with more mainstream views, all the way around, than Republics. There's no "base" to appease in the same way there is with Republics. It is truly impossible for a Republic candidate to please both the Republic "base" and also the intellectual wing of the party. So, almost by definition at this point, a Republic candidate cannot gain the approval of both Rush Limbaugh movement conservatives and Milton Friedman Republicans who believe in science and math.

 

YF is just now getting around to taking down the Halloween decorations, so he finds himself sitting in the living room with a straw man. This explains the thread.

 

Fixed.

 

You keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Although she is a democrat, what I like most about Elizabeth Warren is her intellectual honesty.
She seems to have a willingness to do what is right on behalf of general population as opposed to what is politically expedient and popular within her own party.

 

Stunning naivete on the part of the Democrats (and sorry, Boom) on this board with regards to Warren.

She can speak their language and she's not afraid to call Wall Street on their bullshit? Well, super for her. Neither am I.

What do we have in common? Neither of us has even been elected county dog-catcher.

Seen WAY too many instances of seemingly good-intentioned folks going up to Capital Hill to help change the world, only to be bedazzled by the money and perks and overwhelmed by the corruption in the system.

Let's see her get elected and actually govern before we get all breathless.

 

Bingo.

She's not going to win. That will be a good thing. She'll be able to remain pure.

 

Too lazy to go back and check, but it should be pointed out that the Sunday magazine puff piece on pols of both parties is a longstanding Times tradition.
PS: Don't be so sure she can't win, YF. The Democratic nominee for any statewide office here starts with some built-in advantages.

 

Yeah, a Democrat in Massachusetts is a non-starter.

 

To baldly state she's not going to win is a gross reach. She'll turn out the Dem vote in that state in carload lots.

Meanwhile, Dems remain favored for POTUS in '12, though it's very close.

GOP nom: Mitt currently odds-on . . . Newt the Cute is the only other GOP candidate currently in single digits.

Newt is the clearcut current favorite for the VP nom, and it would make a lot of sense for the party if he was willing to take the VP slot behind Mitt.

 

But you can't speak their language. Neither can I. There really are only a very few people who know the ins and outs of high finance and are not using that knowledge to pillage the economy. Elizabeth Warren is one of them.

This is the straw man again. Nobody can pay attention to a candidate until that person wins office, I guess? OK, then how does someone win office?

She has been in the public eye for many years now and she has built a strong following as someone who will ask the questions Obama, Chris Dodd et al. won't ask.

 

My point wasn't to suggest that she's not smart. She obviously is. But it's easier to ask the "hard questions" when you're an outsider than when you're in office and your party leaders make it clear that your ability to get re-elected depends largely on you not asking those questions.

All this breathless blather about Warren is moot until she gets elected. We'll get to see how eager to she is to hold Wall Street's feet to the fire when the fat cats are lining up to stuff cash into her campaign coffers.