"Elizabeth Warren is the id of the Democratic party"

[Rowdyboy]

Nia Malika Henderson's take on the senator and her future.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/13/elizabeth-warren-the-id-of-the-democratic-party/


There is perhaps no other politician on the national scene right now who has a clearer identity than Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass). She is the unvarnished id of her party, providing that gut check, that heart part of every issue that others can't seem to muster. And she does it in what appears to be carefully planned exchanges and performances. (Perhaps only Chris Christie rivals her YouTube greatest hits collection).

Blogs reported that Warren had publicly shamed Paul, who caused a stir with his Michele Bachmann-esque quotes on vaccines and has since proclaimed that he doesn't understand what the big deal was when he offered that he had heard of "many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." Warren's strategic skirmishes highlight why some liberals so desperately want her to run -- a move she is highly unlikely to make.

But her speeches and prosecutorial approach to hearings also highlight why she wouldn't want to run for president. White House bids can be soul-sapping, years-long exercises in airbrushing and sanding off the rough edges. Even bits of biography are poll-tested. It's a grind with no guarantees except constant message massaging and crises.

We've called Warren a much, much better version of John Edwards. Another, more apt example -- given that it appears that she will make her career in the Senate -- is the man who once held her seat, Ted Kennedy. Kennedy was the last liberal lion with a national footprint. Similarly, as a senator Warren will be a player in 2016 and beyond, forcing others to "go there" on her issues as the highlight reel grows.

[djean111]

1. Things like this just sound like wishful thinking to me.

In any event, I doubt Warren consults pundits and journalists about this stuff, and I doubt there are any real mind readers.

White House bids can be soul-sapping, years-long exercises in airbrushing and sanding off the rough edges. Even bits of biography are poll-tested. It's a grind with no guarantees except constant message massaging and crises.

Not looking forward to the messaging this time - obviously the messaging is, from some, for show and votes, and it is crystal clear that what a candidate says to win can bear no resemblance to what happens once in the White House, with the lobbyists and corporate buddies. Depending on who the candidate is, I may just ignore the whole mess.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. I disagree

I would say she's more like the super-ego (conscience) than the ID (unrestrained impulses)

[Cal33]

3. Yes, she is the super-ego restraining the primitive drives and impulses of the id, but she is also

Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

the one providing the drives that other politicians are afraid of coming close to - let alone express =
partly because of the political baggage they are carrying. Warren is the one who is capable of a
proper balance of both id and super-ego.

I was wondering, if she had gone into politics 10 years earlier, would things have been different?
And how different? I think that her integrity is such that she still would have acquired little or no
soiled political baggage to carry. Sanders seems to be that way, too, but he does not have that
star-power quality of attracting people to the degree that she does.