An anti-vaccination takedown by Elizabeth Warren

It’s pretty certain that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2016, and it’s pretty certain that she’ll win, though a lot can happen in the next twenty months. The Republicans don’t seem to have a credible candidate, though I do worry about Jeb Bush, who I predict will get the GOP nod.

But if I had my druthers, I’d prefer Elizabeth Warren, the senior Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, over Clinton. Clinton remains largely a cipher to me, seems to keep her values and beliefs largely under wraps, and is a bit too hawkish on foreign policy. Sadly, Warren stands a snowball’s chance in hell of being the candidate, for she’s too easily tarred as a “Massachusetts liberal,” and has the deadly stigma of having been a professor at Harvard Law School. All that should really be in her favor, but in this screwed-up country where the “l-word” is anathema, she doesn’t seem electable.

That’s a great pity because Warren is whip-smart, is great on economics, and is not a cipher: she says what she thinks.

Here’s one example. It’s a short video showing Warren questioning Dr. Anne Schuchat, an Assistant Surgeon General and director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As a piece by Joanna Rothkop in  Salon notes, “Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) used the hearing to publicly shame Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) for irresponsible comments he made regarding vaccines’ ability to cause ‘profound mental disorders.’”

What you see here is not a Senator using the questions to discomfit the person interrogated, but to attack the profoundly misguided views of someone else. Rothkop is simply the expert whose opinions are being elicited to discredit the vaccination-deniers all too prevalent in the U.S. It’s a staccato takedown of not just Rand Paul (or Chris Christie and his fellow wafflers), but all denialists.

I think this woman needs to be President.

166 Comments

  1. largeswope
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Sub.

  2. Walt Jones
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    I’d love to see Warren as the candidate, but I probably would have liked McGovern, too.

    • Diane G.
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:25 am | Permalink

      😀

      “Don’t blame me, I’m from Massachusetts.”

  3. Diana MacPherson
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    I too like Warren. I think she would make a superb president.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

      I like Warren’s policies, but in America she won’t get elected in the current atmosphere, so in the circumstances, I want Clinton. Until Jeb Bush came along, the GOP didn’t have a candidate who could make it through the primaries and still attract Independent voters. They’ve got one now. The election is to win the votes of the Independents in America, not for who has the best policies unfortunately.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

        I don’t really trust Hilary. She has advised things that make her seem hawkish to me and we don’t need more hawkish leaders in today’s world.

        • GBJames
          Posted February 16, 2015 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

          I don’t entirely trust her, either. But she’s not in the same league of untrustworthyness as her potential opponents from the Republican party. Well… I should take that back some. They can pretty much be trusted to get everything wrong.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

            To me, it’s about whether the world gets to have a Democrat or a Republican as the most powerful person in the world. I think the world is better off with a Democrat. Hilary Clinton has faults, but there’s plenty to like too, and I’d rather have her than any Republican. And at this stage, she’s looking like the one most capable of being elected. That’s not to denigrate Warren, it’s just unless there’s a big mood change in America, she hasn’t a hope of winning the presidential election. It’s no good having a great candidate if they can’t win.

            • Ubiquitousnewt
              Posted February 16, 2015 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

              I think you’re making a WAY over biased assumption that every Democrat is better than ANY Republican. I lean that way myself… but stop just short of it. A terrible candidate is a terrible candidate, regardless of who runs them.

              …Hillary is not a terrible candidate. She’s merely a “highly undesirable candidate,” which is just asking for the right wing to run someone good & base-motivating and lose to them. Base motivation is exactly what scares me about Clinton; her “Republican in a cheap suit” voting record demotivates myself and others to the point where we can’t be bothered. Not good.

  4. GBJames
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    sub

  5. daveyc
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps it is simply wishful thinking on my part, but I don’t think that it’s particularly certain that Clinton will be the nominee yet. It was looking pretty certain (to some) that she would be the nominee at this point in 2007 as well.

    Granted, I can’t think of anybody else that is more likely than her to capture the nomination. But a lot can happen in the next year and a half. I too would gladly vote for Elizabeth Warren, but she seems disinclined to run right now.

    • GBJames
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

      For someone else to be the nominee, you’d need to be a candidate. There don’t seem to be any on the Democratic side. I think there should be, but I rarely get what I want in the political sphere.

      • eric
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

        I would be amazed if there was no other candidate in the primary.

        Its a bit too early to call this one a walkover, or even be certain Hilary will win. In the 1992 Democratic primary, Bill Clinton was behind for 11 the first 12 State primaries; Tsongas lead most of them up until that point, and many people probably didn’t give the governer from Arkansas much of a chance. In 2008, Hilary was an enormous favorite before the primary season started. Obama was a nobody. She and Obama swapped leads all through January. Obama took most of the February primaries but then Hilary came back and again swapped state victories with him during March and April. It was close up to the end.

        Which is a long way around to saying that I expect:
        1. There will be many candidates who will throw their hat into the ring sometime between now and January 2016.
        2. Some of them will be people you haven’t even heard about yet (unless you are a political junkie).
        3. A clear frontrunner will not emerge before February or March 2016.

        What I think we are seeing right now is everyone’s hesitancy to tick Hilary off before they even know for sure that they want to run. Why burn your bridges this early in the game? Eventually some of them will decided to run, but until they are pretty sure they’ve got the money and infrastructure to do it, they’re not going to upset her.

        • GBJames
          Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

          You and I probably have different definitions of the word “frontrunner”.

          Any politician who is a potential candidate already knows if he/she wants to run. What you need to explain is why those potential candidates have kept their interest so private.

          The (sad) fact is that in a post Citizens United world it comes down to one thing… money. If someone was going to seriously run against Clinton we’d know about it already because of that, alone.

          (But, I don’t dispute that there will be some pro-forma candidates… people putting their face out there in hopes of some more distant prize.)

          • eric
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

            What you need to explain is why those potential candidates have kept their interest so private.

            I thought I did that. They are pulling together the logistics for a run. Assessing their realistic chances. Until they know they’ve got the money and the machine capable of giving them a realistic chance, they aren’t going to say a word about it. Why would they? It would just paint a target on their back before they are ready to start their campaign. Hilary will then work her hardest to scare away potential donors and support. Better to work behind the scenes to try and get that support in place, then announce after they’ve got it.

            I would guess that even Hilary would waffle on it, if she thought anyone would fall for it. That’s really the main difference betweeen her and her possible contenders: they can still sell “I’m not going to say,” she can’t.

            • GBJames
              Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

              “Why would they?”

              Because dropping hints is part of the whole “assessing their realistic chances” process. We just saw this in action with Mitt Romney. He floated a “maybe I’m interested” balloon. It got popped.

              You can’t “work behind the scenes” in today’s politics. You can pretend you aren’t running while you obviously are, sure, but everyone can see you doing it.

              • eric
                Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

                Well, we will have to see. But I’m guessing you will be wrong and there will be at least one other serious contender by the end of this year. The last time the Dems had to run a Presidential primary (2008), people will still entering the race in May 2007. Its a bit early to be calling this one over.

              • GBJames
                Posted February 16, 2015 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

                It isn’t that early. By this time in the 2008 race, Barack Obama had already announced his candidacy (2/10/2007). Clinton had announced even earlier (1/20/2007). John Edwards (remember him?) had announced yet earlier, 12/28/2006).

                The pressures for early announcement have increased, not decreased, since then. Unless you have a virtual lock on the nomination and nobody sees an effective path to beat you.

  6. Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    I love Warren. Clinton is essentially a Republican.

    I think there is a large untapped reservoir of support for a truly progressive candidate. She would need to ditch anti-capitalism talk, though; most progressive policies can be shown to benefit the business community.

    • W.Benson
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

      Agreed. Warren is a smart cookie and speaks well too. Hillary will just continue that great American tradition of screwing things up.

    • Filippo
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

      ” . . . most progressive policies can be shown to benefit the business community.”

      I think that a reasonable statement. I don’t know that the Koch Bros. and Amuricuns fer Prosperity and their Pavlovian ilk would agree.

      • Greg Esres
        Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:45 am | Permalink

        Probably not, but it doesn’t help when you have liberals talking about the end of capitalism or describing how we’ll have to curtail our lifestyles. That just feeds into the worst stereotypes.

        Green technologies are a huge profit opportunity that are passing us by, just as we got caught flat-footed when the oil embargo occurred. The Chinese appear to be putting a lot of money into that.

        • Filippo
          Posted February 17, 2015 at 9:59 am | Permalink

          “The Chinese appear to be putting a lot of money into that.”

          That would be “the Chinese government,” right?

          U.S. non-solar (fossil fuel) capitalist energy producers (and their Congressional handmaidens) aren’t for U.S. government solar energy support, are they? But they’re sure for any tax credit benefitting themselves.

    • Marella
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:21 am | Permalink

      If America’s business community had the sense to realise that, you wouldn’t be in the mess you’re in. Unfortunately greed wins over reality, in the US at least and increasingly in Australia too I’m sorry to say. Though our home grown answer to Vlad Putin, Tony Abbott (may his chooks turn to emus and kick his dunny door down), hasn’t had much success getting his program of greed and oppression through the parliament, which is some consolation for our being crazy enough to elect that thug in the first place.

      • Diane G.
        Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:32 am | Permalink

        “(may his chooks turn to emus and kick his dunny door down)”

        LOL!

  7. Jeff Rankin
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    A lot of clarity in that exchange. I think she’d make a god president too.

    • Jeff Rankin
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

      Blurg – good not “god”. I see no evidence of godhood.

  8. Janet
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Wow. How powerful our government could be if all politicians were that smart.

  9. Ubiquitousnewt
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    If Clinton runs yet again, the Democratic party will be in well-deserved trouble. No leftist, liberal, or progressive I know looks forward to voting for her; many, like myself plan to stay home if she is the Dem candidate in the election. This is not a monarchy; I refuse to elect another dynasty like the Bushes. Nor do I want to return to the horrible politics of the 1990s. Elect another Clinton, and another Gingrich is sure to follow.

    She’ll galvanize the Conservatives, who truly despise her. It’ll be a close election, and we might lose, and we will deserve it for running a candidate with such narrow appeal.

    • GBJames
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

      “…many, like myself plan to stay home if she is the Dem candidate…”

      “…we might lose, and we will deserve it…”

      You don’t see a problem with this?

      • Ubiquitousnewt
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

        No, I don’t. I already stated all the reasons I will not vote for another Clinton, Hillary specifically. I’ll vote in the primaries. I’ll donate to other candidates. I’ll do *anything I can think of* to see to it the Democrats run a different candidate. …but if they insist on running Hillary, I’m out.

        Let’s say, rhetorically, “they” decide to run James Eagan Holmes. I’m supposed to vote for him because the Democrats, in a fit of poor decision making, decided to back him? …You don’t see a problem with this..?

        I’m 40+ years old, and I have never missed an election, but I am really tired of lesser of two evil politics. There’s 300 million people in this country; either run someone I can at least stomach, or lose my vote.

        • GBJames
          Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

          The problem I see is in imagining that there is ever an ideal option. Or even a “really, really, good” one. It isn’t how it works in our elections. We get to choose between the two choices that are on the ballot, unless a third guy appears to divert votes from one or the other candidates. We only ever get to pick from the best of two weevils. Opting out is just a way to vote for the worst of the choices.

          I’m 64. I’ve got you beat in the “tired of” department. Unfortunately my being tired of things doesn’t make a bit of difference. The only that does is political involvement, even when you’d rather have some not-available choice.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

            Hear, hear.

          • Ubiquitousnewt
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

            Not to argue with old age and experience overmuch, but Obama vs McCain, and Obama vs. Ramney, were not only no-brainers, but he was a promising candidate, who has turned out to be a pretty decent president. There was never any “hold your nose and vote” aspect to his election, for liberals, that I know of. I both worked for his campaign, and put my donations where my mouth was.

            Hillary? Ugh. No. It’s not 1992 anymore. Pick someone else. Pick *anybody* else.

            • Filippo
              Posted February 16, 2015 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

              Would you rather the result be a third Bush or a second Clinton?

              • Ubiquitousnewt
                Posted February 16, 2015 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

                “No, I would not.”

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted February 17, 2015 at 5:22 am | Permalink

            I agree. Be involved.
            Also, I’ve seen Hilary on the Daily show and the like and she, and Bill for that matter seem miles better than ‘Republicans’.
            She seems to have reasonable depth and breadth. Her social conscience, while tempered with pragmatism, is there.

        • Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

          Ralph Nader certainly did the world a great service putting George Bush in the White House. Putting his brother in would certainly do the same kind of service for the Democrats. Personally, I think Hillary Clinton would be an excellent president in many ways; I sympathize with purists, but one goes to war with the army one has, not the one they wish they had.

          • Filippo
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

            Yes, I guess that from a practical, realpolitik received political wisdom perspective Nader ought not to have run. I confess to having succumbed to the temptation to vote for him. If only Gore had not acted so Romneyesque cravenly, saying most any and everything to pander to every sub-constituency to get their votes, I otherwise would have voted for Gore.

            (In 1980, I voted for John Anderson. Did that take away from Jimmy Carter? I remember my grandfather asking me, as was his paternalistic and presumptuous wont and habit, for whom I voted. I dutifully, truthfully answered. He presumed to lecture me that I should have voted “for the man who could win.” Of course, I had to keep my mouth shut to keep the peace; I couldn’t respond as I otherwise would have responded to some other non-blood-relative third party presuming to impertinently lecture me.)

            In any event, Gore got more popular votes than Bush. (I remember a letter writer, in a schoolmarmish way, in a letter to the Knoxville News-Sentinel, chastizing Tennesseans, regardless of political conviction, for not voting for Gore.) Sounds like a good argument for doing away with the fatuous Electoral College. No one else is elected on such an absurd basis. If we’re not going to trust “The Masses” in the late 20th/early 21st century to make informed if not wise voting analyses/decisions, when are we?

            I recall that Nader – possessing a ticket allowing him to attend one of the Bush-Gore “debates” – was ordered to leave by debate organizers. He sued but didn’t get anywhere. So much for the democratic and ethical pretensions of debate organizers/sponsors and the two major parties.

            • Diane G.
              Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:37 am | Permalink

              Had Gore been president (after actually winning the election, but not the Supreme Court), it’s very likely we wouldn’t have “preemptively” invaded Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive.

        • graciebaddog
          Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

          One question..

          who do you want to replace then next 2 or possibly 3 Supreme Court Justices?

          Bush/Cruz/Paul/Walker

          or

          a Clinton

          You can’t say it doesn’t matter because it will and you can’t say it’s not really important because it is.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

            Excellent point. This is probably even more important than who becomes president imo.

          • Taz
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

            Exactly. Deciding which party names the next two or three Supreme Court justices is the biggest concern in picking the next president.

        • KD 33
          Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

          Let’s say Hillary is the D nominee. Are you saying you would not vote for her in the general election if she were running against Jeb Bush, or (pick your r candidate)?

          • Ubiquitousnewt
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

            That’s right. I don’t care if it’s Hillary vs. Charles Manson next election, I’m not voting for her.

            I don’t see why more people aren’t grossed out at the concept of two families holding the presidency for a potential total of 28 out of 36 years….but anyone who thinks it’s my *obligation* to approve it at the voting box can talk a long walk on a short pier. That sort of attitude “You’ll take the garbage we serve you and like it, or else!” is why parties lose elections. …It happened to the Republicans with Romney, it can happen to the Democrats.

            • GBJames
              Posted February 16, 2015 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

              I’m “grossed out” by the dynasty bit, too. So what. I still have to live in reality. I don’t get to take my marbles and go home.

            • rickflick
              Posted February 16, 2015 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

              Well its not as if the former is installing the later. They still have to earn votes by appearing reasonable. I’m sure there are many potential D candidates who would qualify, and one with game might eventually appear, but it just so happens name recognition and track record(any) are an important element in who ends up attracting money and attention. Some might even like the idea of dynasty. Look at the British royalty. Loved by some.
              As for me, anyone but a republican.

            • KD 33
              Posted February 16, 2015 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

              I’m not thrilled by a dynasty, and I’m lukewarm at best on Hillary. But I’m less thrilled (understatement) by the prospect of an ultraconservative supreme court, more stupid Republican wars, and regressive Republican economic and healthcare policies. That’s a real list of real, stomach-churning prospects, and it goes on.

              I’ll bet we agree on 90% of our actual politics, but I cannot express how frustrated I am with your position on this. This same thinking is what gave us George Bush.

              Please, please, take your frustrations out in the primaries, but don’t play a part in dooming our country!

            • Diane G.
              Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:40 am | Permalink

              See my comment above.

              https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/an-anti-vaccination-takedown-by-elizabeth-warren/#comment-1146567

              Would you like that sort of fuck-up on your conscience?

            • Michael Waterhouse
              Posted February 17, 2015 at 5:28 am | Permalink

              It’s a consideration but also a political reality. It’s not as though Hilary is there solely because it’s a family thing, she has done the political hard yards, starting back in college.
              She is evidently someone who cared and wanted to make difference.
              plus the Supreme Court thing is vitally important.

    • Michael Garner
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

      You have characterized the essential problem of the American voters, especially liberals and moderates. Many will vote only for a candidate they love rather than making a choice between (or among) candidates to decide which one dislike the least. The stakes are too high to wait for Mr/Ms Right.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

        It’s also the big problem with the primary process. The electorate is simply not engaged. The majority of those who vote in the primaries are on the far left or far right, so a centrist candidate has little chance of making it through the process unless they already have huge financial backing (like Hilary and Jeb). The most electable candidate inevitably wins in the end, then those on the far left and right won’t vote for them, effectively giving a vote to the other party. It becomes about whether more Ds or Rs stay home as the candidate plays to the centre for the presidential campaign. Often they have to back track from stuff they’ve said to keep the wings happy in the primaries, which means they all look like a bunch of hypocrites.

      • Ubiquitousnewt
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

        I disagree. If you want to win elections, it’s your *responsibility* as party leadership to run “electable” candidates. If a large portion of your core doesn’t like who you’re thinking about running, you should be obliged to pick someone else.

        …Let’s cut the crap. Hillary’s not the most skilled pick, nor the most electable. She’s being considered the “heir apparent” (notice the obligatory monarchy term..) because of cronyism and apathy. If they can’t do better, then screw them. She’s not enough better than the Republicans for me to bother voting.

        …and like I said, the conservatives will turn out *in droves* to vote against her. These sound like good ideas to you?

    • Mark R.
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

      What dynasty would you rather have, Clinton’s or Bush’s? I guess staying home will make you feel better, but I see another Bush Presidency far more detrimental than a Clinton’s.

    • Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

      “many, like myself plan to stay home if she is the Dem candidate in the election. ”

      which seems to mean “if I don’t get exactly what I want, I’ll shoot myself in the foot out of spite. Because that’ll show ’em, that’ll show ’em all.”

      • Ubiquitousnewt
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

        The counter to that is to characterize your attitude as “You’ll take the garbage we serve you, and like it.”

        • Posted February 17, 2015 at 7:51 am | Permalink

          which would be a lie, since no one says we “like” it, but we know that we could get worse.

    • Taz
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

      Of all the reasons to vote for or against Hillary Clinton, the fact that her husband was president and “this is not a monarchy” strikes me as the least important.

  10. Roan Ridgeway
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    If I had to make a deal sealed by a handshake, and it was Elizabeth Warren’s hand, I’d trust her to keep her end of the bargain. If it was Hillary Clinton, I’d feel much better if I had the understanding in writing with her signature on it.

  11. suckmydictum
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    calling elizabeth “a $22 an hour minimum wage would be awesome” warren great on economics is like calling marco rubio great on climate science or calling bill clinton great on women’s right.

    • Mark R.
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

      $22/hour is where it would be if minimum wage kept up with productivity. At this point, yes, jacking it up from the pathetic current $7.25 to $22 would be a shock to the system, but the point is still valid.

      • suckmydictum
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

        ummm…kept up with the productivity of whom? if you’re talking about the productivity of high skilled workers, then duh, but what does the productivity of high skilled workers have to do with low skill/low wage workers? if you’re talking about the productivity of low skill workers, color me skeptical that the burger flippers of today have made vast productivity gains over burger flippers of yore.

        • Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

          Productivity, economically speaking, doesn’t have anything to do with the skill level of the employee. Give a burger flipper an automated flipping machine and his measured productivity skyrockets.

          If a fast food establishment can serve more burgers per employee than they could a decade ago, productivity has increased. I don’t know whether this is true for burger flippers.

          • suckmydictum
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

            “Productivity, economically speaking, doesn’t have anything to do with the skill level of the employee.”

            right. that’s why neurosurgeons make the same wage as lawn-mowers.

            • Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

              ” that’s why neurosurgeons make the same wage as lawn-mowers.”

              Well, I suppose if you took a lawn mower and made him a neurosurgeon, it would technically be an increase in productivity, but we’re talking about macroeconomics. On a macro level, productivity is mostly controlled by the quantity or quality of capital stock.

              • suckmydictum
                Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

                GDP per capita, which is about as general a way of measuring national (as you say, macroeconomic) productivity as possible, is defined in ECON101 as (C + G + I + NX)/population. The closest thing to “capital stock” in this equation is I for investment, but to say that productivity is “mostly” controlled by capital stock given this politically neutral way of defining productivity is a pretty bold claim.

                none of this has anything to do with the minimum wage. classical theory shows that when the labor market is competitive (the low skilled market almost certainly is very competitive) workers are paid their marginal contribution to the firm. when you put a price floor on wages, some people aren’t going to be productive enough to get over that hurdle and they’re going to get laid off and the people that do are probably going to be the lowest skilled people out there. improved job skills cannot be legislated into existence (at least not in the form of a minimum wage).

                ms. warren is too smart to be totally unaware of all this (especially since she’s apparently “great on economics”). The minimum wage is a demagogic ploy to win the votes of people who think the intent of a policy exactly equals results of that policy in the real world.

            • Filippo
              Posted February 16, 2015 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

              How does the “unearned” income and “carried interest” wage (and concern for other humans qua humans) of Romneyesque investors/venture capitalists/billionaire hedge fund managers – and college/professional football coaches – compare to that of brain surgeons (and the President of the United States for that matter)?

        • Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

          plenty of skilled workers get paid mimimum wage. The employers falsely call a lot of jobs “unskilled” when that is far from the truth.

    • KD 33
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

      This is a pretty empty post. First, Bill Clinton may have tom-catted around, but he *was* good on women’s rights as far as political leadership was concerned. Also, can you please support your implicit statement that a min wage of $22/hr is poor economics. I’ve heard the claims that raising the minimum wage costs low-paying jobs (which, for reasonable increases, has been proven to be wrong). But where should the line be drawn? More substance, please.

      • suckmydictum
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

        there’s a significant disagreement in the economics literature about the effects of the minimum wage. Card/Kruger is the classic econometric paper showing few low-skill job losses as a result of the minimum wage. There are also a vast number of papers showing the opposite. All of these papers have studied the issue for modest min-wage increases. I have no idea how you can say that tripling the federal minimum wage counts as a “reasonable increase” and i doubt there’s an economist alive who thinks a $22 an hour wouldn’t cost some extremely vulnerable poor people their jobs.

        it’s a wonderful pretense from well-educated white people that poor people should only be working the jobs the well-educated white people think they should be working.

        • darrelle
          Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

          I really don’t want to join the actual discussion. Just wanted to point out that your interpretation that KD 33 is referring to an increase to $22 an hour in her/his statement “(which, for reasonable increases, has been proven to be wrong),” is clearly mistaken.

        • Posted February 16, 2015 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

          Wow, that’s a lot of words that never came out of my mouth. You say or imply that I think that:
          1) $22 is reasonable – in fact I’d probably agree that’s too high. But I found your casting of Warren with Rubio and climate change deniers kind of silly. And, as someone pointed out, $22 just keeps pace with productivity. Mine is a real question.

          2)… there are only certain jobs “poor people” should be working in. That’s simply offensive.

          BTW, I am aware of that (controversial) paper. I am also aware of, and spoken with, actual working people in cities where the min wage was raised. It’s worth talking to them.

          • suckmydictum
            Posted February 17, 2015 at 8:06 am | Permalink

            1. I think you admitted the research only looks at “reasonable” minimum wage increases. Therefore, when ms. warren talks about tripling it, I think we agree that the empirical literature isn’t that helpful. And as I pointed out earlier, there’s no a clearly cogent way to argue that low skilled labor’s productivity has increased that much compared to higher skilled labor.

            2. I think you misunderstood me. I was suggesting it’s extremely pretentious and officious for the well-educated, priviledged people to demand what sort of jobs poor people can work, which is exactly what a minimum wage demand is.

      • dongiovanni
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

        Furthermore, should jobs baying $7.25 an hour actually exist? That’s the type of wage that makes you think Marx had a point.

    • dongiovanni
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

      Well, it should certainly be high enough to allow people to live adequately well. While I don’t know much about the cost of living in the USA, in New Zealand a living wage is about $19 NZD an hour, so $22 USD might not be far off the mark, though it does seem a little high. And importantly, this is more a moral dictum than anything; it’s morally bankrupt to pay people less than they need to support themselves.

      • Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

        Some of the argument against it has been that most people earning minimum wage don’t need to support themselves; they’re often part-time jobs for people living with parents or a spouse with a hopefully better job.

      • suckmydictum
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

        More morally bankrupt than saying some jobs are off-limits to the lowest skilled workers? Would you tell your neighbor she couldn’t work a job she wanted to because you didn’t feel the pay was high enough?

        Of course none of the moral stuff matters. There are better poverty fighting policies than the minimum wage (wage subsidies, a UBI, or the EITC are almost certainly better). if you’re actually interested in combatting poverty, you could at least examine those before uncritically accepting what an economically illiterate politician tells you about the minimum wage.

        • dongiovanni
          Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

          No, what I’m saying is that if someone’s employed to do unskilled work, it’s not acceptable to pay them a starvation wage and you’d better pay them enough to live on. I quite understand why someone would work such a job, but paying people starvation wages is unacceptable. And we already had this argument in the 19th century.

          • suckmydictum
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

            maybe you’re right. maybe you’re not. either way, the best way to help poor americans is not legislating a wage and making it illegal for them to work here. we already do that to foreigners.

    • Taz
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

      Warren called for raising the minimum wage to $10.10, not $22.

      “If we started in 1960, and we said [that] as productivity goes up … then the minimum wage was going to go up the same … if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour
      . . .
      During my Senate campaign, I [frequently] ate a Number 11 at McDonald’s. It cost $7.19. If we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 over three years, the price increase on that item would be to about $7.23. Are you telling me that’s unsustainable?”

    • Bruce Gorton
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 2:46 am | Permalink

      The thing about any business is it goes into it to make a profit, thus provided it believes it can make that profit a high minimum wage isn’t a bar.

      Thus a higher minimum wage can actually produce more jobs, depending on what the international economic climate is.

      Poorer people with more money spend more of that money on buying goods, then richer people with more money do.

      If businesses can get away with paying less for the same labour, that does not mean however than they can’t pay more.

      Further employment isn’t the be all and end all, it is a means to address poverty. If you are employing a large number of people at slave wages, then you haven’t really addressed poverty you’ve just implemented slavery.

      Sure you might encourage export based businesses to mechanise by having higher minimum wage – but then you have one guy earning $22 rather than three people earning $7, then that is a net gain because at least you aren’t wasting three people’s time doing one person’s job.

      And businesses that can’t afford a living minimum wage? Quite frankly shouldn’t be in business in the first place.

    • Michael Waterhouse
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 5:40 am | Permalink

      Why highly skilled, how about just skilled. How about just doing the work that enables the the whole business to run and generate profit.
      It is from that exploitation that the wealth of many comes, not because they are skilled or work harder or are smarter but because they can exploit.
      Trying to make any case for paying people less than a living wage, let alone a reasonable living wage, for people investing all their time, the full working week, in work, is disturbing. It is a kind of slavery.
      A $22 minimum wage would be fair and reasonable and affordable if the same consideration were given to the poor and so called unskilled as that given the wealthy and those with dubious skills.

      • suckmydictum
        Posted February 17, 2015 at 8:08 am | Permalink

        thanks for my daily marxist tonic.

        • Michael Waterhouse
          Posted February 18, 2015 at 8:09 am | Permalink

          Typical. The old knee jerk commie Marxist evil response if one dares comment on the filthy rich.
          I suggest you check your propaganda quotient.

          It is an unfortunate side effect of the cold war that now any comment on economic fairness can be cast as “commie”, and it is effective because so much propaganda was pumped into you that it stuck. Plus of course a certain simplistic libertarian notion of individual right.

          None of that changes the fact that you have cast yourself as some one who would, if they could, exploit other people without regard for their well being. Some of us do consider others well being, without being Marxist.

      • Filippo
        Posted February 17, 2015 at 10:45 am | Permalink

        “A $22 minimum wage would be fair and reasonable and affordable if the same consideration were given to the poor and so called unskilled as that given the wealthy and those with dubious skills.”

        I’d like to read research on the skill levels of the world’s/U.S.’s (fill in a number)richest investors. One can be a multi-millionaire yet have skills sufficiently-dubious to prevent his being hired for any significantly-skilled work for modest lower five-figure compensation.

        I’d also like to be able to evaluate their science literacy. No doubt a nominal percentage of them have STEM training. Good for them. But many don’t and don’t want to. They want others to do the heavy lifting of obtaining STEM Ph.D.’s, but they don’t want to do it because that is not where the money is. They want to “make” (as opposed to “earn”) money from investing (“unearned” income, per U.S. fed. inc. tx. forms) from the efforts of those actually doing something and earning income.

        Every venture capitalist or billionaire hedge fund manager (whose income is assessed at the lower investor rate) or investor has no less an opportunity/duty to prep for and pursue a STEM career, or careers in health care, education, law enforcement, social service and public service, for that matter. (Why didn’t Mitt “Carried Interest” Romney major in math instead of English, before going for his rich father-funded Harvard MBA/JD? But no doubt he wants others to do so in furtherance of his investment goals.)

        • suckmydictum
          Posted February 17, 2015 at 11:38 am | Permalink

          look, i have no doubt people with dubious skills fall into a bucket of crap and get filthy rich. and i also have no doubt people get rich by assiduous work and acumen. as dongiovanni pointed out, it’s not fair that people work their ass off and scarcely get paid enough to get by. The actual question is what can we do for those people. forcing a pay floor on employers or equivalently, outlawing certain low skill jobs, is not a solution. this is easily backed up without appeals to “fairness”.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted February 18, 2015 at 8:11 am | Permalink

            Seems to work in more civilized countries.

        • Filippo
          Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

          To wear it out a little more, I’d like to observe Romney and his “corporations are people” Top 1% ilk in the public high school classroom, bringing their scintillating rhetorical powers to bear on 11th and 12th graders in an attempt to persuade them to go into STEM fields.

          I would like to hear their response when students reply that they’d rather get a non-STEM undergraduate degree and an Ivy League MBA/JD, and then go into venture capitalism, junk bond trading, and hedge fund management.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted February 18, 2015 at 8:14 am | Permalink

            And other border line evil morally vacuous en devours.
            The ‘skill’ they have, if you want to call it that is along way from a useful productive skill related to stuff in the world.

            • Diane G.
              Posted February 19, 2015 at 1:51 am | Permalink

              But but but…Romney saved the Olympics!!!

              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted February 20, 2015 at 5:09 am | Permalink

                I didn’t know that, I take it all back then.

              • Diane G.
                Posted February 20, 2015 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

                😀

  12. Michael Garner
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    “I think this woman needs to be President.”

    More like we need this woman to be President. Unfortunately, she doesn’t seem to think so.

    • Ubiquitousnewt
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

      I think the last guy that ran against her has done a much better job than she would have.

      To make the assumption that there’s no one out there that’s as good as she is is, well, “completely unsupported.”

      She’s ancient, too conservative and “hawkish,” as Coyne put it, galvanizes the opposition, and is, at best, the Democrats doing the same thing the Republicans do – trying to live in the past.

      • GBJames
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

        He prefers not to be called “Coyne”. And don’t call me Shirley.

      • Filippo
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

        “She’s ancient . . . .”

        No doubt she’s glad to have reached the age she has. I hope to reach the age she has. At what moment did she become “ancient”? You do hope to reach at least her age, don’t you? Not everyone does.

        • Ubiquitousnewt
          Posted February 16, 2015 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

          Yeah, but I don’t expect to be elected president at that point of my life; actually, I expect to be *retired* by then.

          She’s only a few years younger than McCain, and he was panned mercilessly for being old and out of touch. She’d be 21-22 years older than Obama was at election. …My point is, it’s not so much her chronological age, as her history – she’s a relic from politics of 20 years ago, and I don’t particularly want to return to those days. The nineties sucked.

          • merilee
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

            She is – and acts – substantially younger than McCain.

      • Posted February 16, 2015 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

        Just to focus on one point, if you think Clinton would galvanize the opposition, what do you think Warren would do?

        BTW, on economics and healthcare, at least, I’d also prefer Warren over Clinton. In other areas, not so sure.

      • Posted February 16, 2015 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

        I would hardly call Hilary ancient!

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

        Ancient?! Jeb Bush is only 5 years younger than her! At what point does one cross over to ancient?

        • Ubiquitousnewt
          Posted February 16, 2015 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

          65. Maybe 67-68.

          We’re discussing being president of the free world at the same age most people are starting to worry about continence issues and cognitive decline. Post retirement age is too damn old.

          • merilee
            Posted February 16, 2015 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

            Being more or less Hilary’s age I feel FAR from ancient, and only might worry about continence issues if I watched too much Montry Python while drinking too much tea…(but that would have been the same in my 20s)

            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted February 17, 2015 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

              While me, a generation younger, pees much more freely. Yes, I shared that.

          • Diane G.
            Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:47 am | Permalink

            You’ve just insulted a lot of people here.

            Any idea how old Dawkins is?

            • Posted February 17, 2015 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

              Dawkins will be 74 in March.

              • Diane G.
                Posted February 17, 2015 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

                Well, I meant to make Ubiquitousnewt figure that out…but thanks.:D

              • Posted February 17, 2015 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

                De nada🐸

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted February 17, 2015 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

                LOL Merilee was too quick with the answer. She’s like the Arnold Horshack of WEIT.

              • Diane G.
                Posted February 17, 2015 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

                Lol!

              • Posted February 17, 2015 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

                Had to look up Arnold. Heard of the show but never saw it.

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted February 17, 2015 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

                Ri loves Welcome Back Kotter. Arnold was my favourite. I can’t believe the actor died so young.

              • merilee
                Posted February 17, 2015 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

                Ri?

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted February 18, 2015 at 6:09 am | Permalink

                It was supposed to be “I loved”. I was on my iPad again and I think falling asleep. I’m so exhausted all the time lately so more creative spellings will probably happen. I think my iPad has it’s own ideas of what it wants to say.

              • Posted February 17, 2015 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

                Arnold Horshack? Is he related to Schwarzenegger?

                b&

              • merilee
                Posted February 17, 2015 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

                Horshack is almost as bad a name to get saddled with (heehee) as Schwarzenegger,the Guvernator. At least it’s not horseshit…

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted February 17, 2015 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

            I don’t think you know too many people in that age range. You are also the most experienced of anyone and at that age you are typically more calm and reasonable.

            You do know that many academics work well beyond what is considered typical retirement age, don’t you? Some of my best professors were in their 60s and 70s.

      • Diane G.
        Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:48 am | Permalink

        Michael was quoting what Jerry said about Warren. He was not referring to Hillary!

  13. frankschmidtmissouri
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    “I think this woman needs to be President.”

    No, she doesn’t. We need her to be our Gaylord Nelson, Bob LaFollette, Jacob Javits and Daniel Webster.

  14. Ohtobide
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Is that Elizabeth Warren, Fauxcahontas? The woman who pretended to be Native American to get a leg up? And you want her to be President? Really?

    • Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

      You lack a sense of proportion if this is really a factor in whether or not you would support Warren for office. No human being is totally unblemished.

    • kieran
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

      Said she was 1/32 native american based on family stories, looking at the background she didn’t gain any benefit from it and it’s only a story among the rush limbaugh crowd?

    • GBJames
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

      That, Ohtobide, is what passes as for political commentary on the right.

      It would be comic if not how stupidity affects public policy.

  15. merilee
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Yes, wouldn’t it be loverly…But, she may be just too smart to be elected, say I cynically…

    • Jeff Rankin
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

      And too honest.

      • merilee
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

        that, too

    • Diane G.
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:50 am | Permalink

      Unfortunately true.

  16. Pliny the in Between
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Only slightly off tangent.

    I think I am safe in saying that the majority of WEIT commenters are not advocates of tradition concepts of free will. How do you reconcile this with the needs of a democracy?

    If humans by and large respond best to aggressive marketing strategies (something at which the Republicans excel) in place of critical assessment what hope is there for the kind of reasoned populace needed to sustain democracy?

    • Cliff Melick
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

      Less than zero.

  17. mordacious1
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    I’m not too sure if Clinton is a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination. She certainly has the machine in place and the money, but a lot of people would rather vote for someone else. I hope she wins just because the Republicans will go apoplectic.

    Sad news…Leslie Gore died, very young at 68.

    • mordacious1
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      Should be “Lesley”.

      • Posted February 16, 2015 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

        And shoo-in. ;=)

        • mordacious1
          Posted February 16, 2015 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

          Usually, when someone corrects me, I say “Doh!”, but this time I had to look it up and you are correct. So thanks, I learned something.

          • Diane G.
            Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:52 am | Permalink

            Yes, Lesley left an indelible imprint on my middle-school days…

            • Posted February 17, 2015 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

              Yup, and I actually had a bf named John who flirted with my friend Judy. It’s My Party!! Pathetic…

  18. Tom K
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    If nobody minds, I would like to split my vote between Warren and Leon Panetta.

    • Curt Nelson
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

      I assumed LP was a good person, and then when he quit the CIA he wrote a book in which he dissed Obama, and it made me wonder how anyone decent could do that. It’s the opposite of loyalty.

      Colin Powell doesn’t even speak badly of Dick Cheney yet, does he?

      • Filippo
        Posted February 16, 2015 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        I’m quite sure I correctly read (in the NY Times Book Review?) that the honorable Mr. Panetta approved an (drone?) attack on a bad guy, knowing that his wife was at the scene. She was also killed. Unless the guy constantly kept his wife in tow for the express purpose of keeping U.S. attack at bay, I have to wonder why Panetta, a husband, father and grandfather, didn’t hold off until another time. He should be no less scrutinized than Obama.

  19. Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    And/or Jackie Speier.

  20. rickflick
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Elisabeth Warren is a breath of fresh air.

    • Kevin
      Posted February 16, 2015 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

      Agreed. And, sadly, Clinton is not a proclaimed atheist, but neither is Warren.

  21. Randy Schenck
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    The Prof. took all the words out of my mouth.

  22. Posted February 16, 2015 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Warren will make a terrific attorney general.

  23. Posted February 16, 2015 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    Late to the party; haven’t read other responses.

    We seriously need to push back on this whole anti-vaxx nonsense, and hard.

    Failure to vaccinate your child is premeditated child abuse, and you are a bad parent if you fail to vaccinate your child.

    Parents who truly love their children get them vaccinated.

    It’s right up there with using rear-facing child seats and teaching them not to get into a stranger’s car.

    Actually, it’s even worse. If you don’t get your children vaccinated, you’re turning them into little Typhoid Marys who’ll bring plague and death to all their friends. Bad enough that you’re cool watching your kid climb into the back of that candy-bearing trenchcoat-wearing strange man’s pickup, but you seriously want your kid to drag the whole class along for the ride?

    And I am deadly serious about this. Nothing at all in this post is intended as hyperbole. We need to stop these bad parents right now and shame the dipshits into doing the right thing, since it’s clear that nothing else is working.

    b&

    • Michael Waterhouse
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 5:57 am | Permalink

      What do you say to the claim that rearward facing seats have contributed to people leaving their kids in the car cos there out of sight and the kids dying of heat stroke?

      However I agree, we need to push back on this anti-vaxxer nonsense. For children, absolutely.

      • Filippo
        Posted February 17, 2015 at 10:50 am | Permalink

        “What do you say to the claim that rearward facing seats have contributed to people leaving their kids in the car cos there out of sight and the kids dying of heat stroke?”

        I suspect a sig. fraction of them also text while driving, and walk in front of moving cars in parking lots and not first looking both ways (probably also texting).

        • Michael Waterhouse
          Posted February 18, 2015 at 8:21 am | Permalink

          I get what you mean but I think it’s a slightly different category.
          I mean things that perhaps seem self evidently safer having unintended harmful consequences.
          The people who left their kids in the car are not necessarily those more irresponsible texters you cite.
          It was usually a distraction at just the right time at just the right mood. It would not have happened had the kid been in the front seat, in sight.

      • Posted February 18, 2015 at 8:28 am | Permalink

        I’ve never been able to understand how anyone could possibly forget their kids in the car. Groceries, maybe.

        • Michael Waterhouse
          Posted February 20, 2015 at 5:06 am | Permalink

          It is hard but I read some of the stories and it could happen to anyone (seemingly)

    • Michael Waterhouse
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 5:58 am | Permalink

      cos their out of sight.

    • Michael Waterhouse
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 5:59 am | Permalink

      I’ll get it, cos they are out of sight.

  24. Posted February 16, 2015 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    Can somebody explain the “stigma of having been a professor at Harvard Law School” to me?

    • Diane G.
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 1:01 am | Permalink

      The right-wing term for intelligent democratic politicians used to be, “pointy-head intellectuals.” <–The I-word, BTW.

      • Filippo
        Posted February 17, 2015 at 10:04 am | Permalink

        No doubt they do not consider it a stigma to be a “senior fellow” at places like The Hoover Institute, The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, and The Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    • Marella
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 2:14 am | Permalink

      Inorite?

      • Diane G.
        Posted February 17, 2015 at 2:28 am | Permalink

        😉

  25. Ken Kukec
    Posted February 17, 2015 at 1:14 am | Permalink

    There are a lot of political lifetimes from here to election day 2016 (which is why political handicappers wait as close to the last minute as possible to get serious action down on an election). While the odds look long on Warren now, let’s not forget that another dark horse was polling in single digits this time ’08. Here’s hoping the senator from MA takes the plunge and comes up a winner.

    Not that I don’t like Hillary; I do, and I’d likely vote for her over anybody she’s likely to run against. But the truth is not in her, or in Bubba, either — even under the debased standards applicable to politicians. Maybe they’ve been in the game too long. Whatever it is, everything and everyone can be subverted to the Clinton political cause, all facts spun according to the Clinton political calculus.

    Anyway, if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush redux, I’ll make a trip to dump a jumbo jar of Lipton’s instant in the Charles River, watch it flow out toward the Harbor in mourning for our nation’s founders, who thought they’d banished hereditary transfers of power from our shores. Where once ruling families devised to their heirs and successors fife, manor, and demesne, now they bequeath to one another donor lists, campaign consultants, and staffers. Alphonse Karr was right.

    • Filippo
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 10:06 am | Permalink

      How about James Webb?

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted February 17, 2015 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

        Webb is good by me. He’s as close as we’d be likely to come to a bona fide hero in the White House. I think he’s (sometimes justly)misunderstood The Left, but I don’t doubt his heart is pure and in the right place. Plus, I have a soft spot for anyone who can write a novel as good as Fields of Fire.

        Do you sense he wants it and is willing to run?

        • Filippo
          Posted February 17, 2015 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

          I perceive he wants it but is not willing to demean himself by saying any and everything in order to get it.

          He might do well to try to create a set of circumstances resulting in Ms. Clinton clamoring for him to be her running mate.

  26. tom donald
    Posted February 17, 2015 at 3:12 am | Permalink

    A message from Scotland: Please elect this woman to be your president! 🙂

  27. Posted February 17, 2015 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    I think Warren is outstanding, nay impressive, on vaccination there.
    However, I’d like to see some more of her before I’d consider her as a good -or not- candidate for the US presidency. There is more to government than vaccination. However, I haven’t seen a GOP pretender good on *anything* in the last few years. GWB turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. The US is a resilient country, so maybe you can afford another one like him?
    Not that it matters at all, I’m not even a US citizen, and cannot vote. But still I can have opinions.

    By the way, since the US elections affects so much of the rest of the world, should ‘the rest of the world’ not be entitled to vote in the US elections? Even as only one state, some limited number of delegates, would that not be fair? And I’m sure it could be legally possible. American lawyers are outstanding at these things 🙂

    • Filippo
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

      “By the way, since the US elections affects so much of the rest of the world, should ‘the rest of the world’ not be entitled to vote in the US elections?”

      Only if you have a lot of money to invest in lobbying and to donate to Congressional (re-)election campaigns If I correctly recall from reading in the NY Times a few weeks ago, more and more such foreign influence is being brought to bear.

      • Diane G.
        Posted February 17, 2015 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

        Well, isn’t that just ducky!

  28. Posted February 17, 2015 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on christianagnostic and commented:
    This is why I admire Senator Warren.


%d bloggers like this: