General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why on Earth should we nominate a presidential candidate who voted for war with Iraq? [View all]cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I guess she really wasn't then was she, in terms of what actually happened later. What were they trying to say then? Not so much that they expected her to win, but that they WANTED her to be in a position to win. When Obama was a close second, he obviously was an "acceptable" second choice too.
Now, Obama serves their interests as well. It would be interesting to see if they try to push down Elizabeth Warren if they feel she's more of a real threat towards controlling their power over our government. And to deny corporate power over our government is pretty ludicrous these days. It's hard to say whether either Obama or Hillary in their heart WANT this corporate power, if they felt they had the freedom to do whatever they wanted. But whether or not Obama and Hillary want corporate power to be dictating what goes on in Washington or not, they have both been enablers of it happening, and don't appear to outwardly have too much problems doing so. Someone like Warren I feel wouldn't embrace being an enabler as much as they do.
If you go strictly by the numbers of the Quinnipiac poll as the word of god, then Chris Christie is our next president. But many have noted, he would be lucky to get out of the Republican primaries, let alone win the presidency then. It's still way too early to read too much in to the polls what will happen later and who we should "anoint" yet. A lot of time still before then. I refuse to anoint someone because "they have the best chance", when that really hasn't been established yet, just as it wasn't this early before the last presidential election.
We should do our best when the time comes evaluating who has the best stances representing party values, and hopefully build a good consensus with someone that we feel will also appeal to the populace in general.
And again, whether it is Warren or another "left" politician running that advocates issues like prosecuting banksters, etc., I think we shouldn't have them diminished as being "too partisan left wing" when in many of these cases, these issues are something that not just the left among the general populace will support but the independents, and some of the right as well. It is those issues that the corporate elites don't want that work against them that they will try to position as "far left" in order to try and diminish their importance as factors in who should get elected. We as the voting populace should DEMAND that these issues be used as a measuring stick, as many of these issues are the ones that have been avoided for way too long, and are a large reason why our country is in the mess it is in now because of that selective avoidance brought on by corporate lobbyist corruption. Then we can get a Democrat that can really make a difference the way an FDR would.