I would argue that the skill to hire the right folks has a fair bit to do with, or is even one of, the knobs and buttons.
Not of the sort that comes from being of the established political elite in particular. It is a skill that one gets from having managed a group previously. That can be in government. But it could be in business, or, say, as a grass roots political organizer before briefly moving on to the state senate and then senator from the state … 
But I’m sure you remember that was exactly the reasoning why Trump wouldn’t be a disaster. He’d just hire the right people. Easy, peasy.
Now, see, you folk are already making a far more nuanced and considered argument than “Politicians have messed things up, therefore the way to fix things is to elect non-politicians”. “Politicians” are not a monolithic entity - some are competent, some are not; some are outstanding, some are dire; some are altruistic, some are corrupt; and so on and so forth. Throwing them all out owes more to intellectual laziness than it does to earnest reform - the harder path is to figure out which ones will actually deliver the desired results (as opposed to the ones that promise they will, which is all of them) and get them into the right offices.
And there’s nothing wrong with considering non-politicians (say, businessmen or military officers) for office on their individual merits as long as one is aware that government does not run like a business or the military for many reasons, and success in one area does not necessarily apply to others if the individual’s skill sets are not transferable. But non-politicians likewise don’t get extra bonus points just because they’re non-politicians.
I’d be hard pressed to come up with an acceptable sense.
Yes, I did follow the link, to see if there was any indication the text was from the book, or similar to text in the book. I can only assume the person who wrote the blurb dislikes Warren.
We, as a society, have moved from stay at home moms being the norm to working moms being the norm. That’s all I took from it. I mean, I guess you’re inferring the phrase means the mothers had no say on the matter? I just take it as ad copy poetic flourish.
It assumes both that the mothers have no agency, and that they weren’t working before.
No, not all people read “working” exclusively as “holding a paying job outside the home”.
Oy vey. The book is about two income families. Whatever.
This is not a new issue; women have been bristling at the implication that women who run the home are not working for about half a century now.
Which is why I don’t buy the idea that another Democrat woman can’t win. But whoever it is will have to put in the modest amount of work to get back Wisconsin and Michigan (which are very winnable) and be a dominating personality, not a submissive figurehead. And I don’t know who in the party, or in all of D.C., male or female, is dominant enough to beat Trump.
Warren is probably better than most, because she* is “shrill.” You want someone who frowns. You want someone who will tell you what she really *thinks. You want a boss, not a cute secretary.
“Deceived.” Or “conned,” if you prefer.
You know, the word “work” means both any kind of labour and someone’s paid job. Ignoring the definition that is blindingly obviously intended so you can be offended is not totally cool.
Not my issue, I’ve never been a SAHM, but I will say I don’t recall that argument getting much traction any time in the last fifty or so years.
What frigging argument? Are you denying that when someone says they were late for work that nobody in the English speaking world is going to think they mean late for cleaning the kitchen or nursing their baby? Again: the book is about two income families. Mistaking the quoted phrase as anything like “women’s work ain’t real work” is not remotely rational.
Well, I guess that makes sense, because it’s an issue raised by women, and we all know how irrational and emotional they can be, right?
j666, if you actually are at all curious about what the book is about you could pretty easily google up some reviews of it, and read some of the language that the authors actually use.
Here’s a New Yorker one. And another from Mother Jones. The thesis is pretty straightforward: the rise of two parents in the paid workforce has increased income … and has been matched with a much greater increase in expenses and debt.
In the Mother Jones one the co-author, Amelia Tyagi, uses the phrase. And the clear meaning is mothers in the paid workforce.
To read in that context “send mom to work” as “women who run the home are not working” and “assumes both that the mothers have no agency” is … very strange.
I am familiar with the argument, and do not disagree, although I find it ignores other benefits to a two income household. My only comment was on the blurb.
I do not see how anyone can disagree that “send mom to work” implies that only work outside the home counts somehow and that women were manipulated, at best, into choosing paid outside work. (I won’t even mention the implication that paid work is an option.)
This is not a new observation. The phrase “working mother” has been raising hackles most of my life, and probably since World War II.
Well then you do not see how most of us would understand the comment in that context, because it is very evident and clear to the rest of us who have a hard time seeing how you can read it that way. But so be it.
Mind you I am not supporting their thesis per se. The premise that women previously had been commonly working for pay outside the home is accepting a short period of time as the long historic norm. Women worked (outside the home for pay) as the norm across much of history. Really "working women’ powered the mills of the Industrial Revolutions and increased numbers during the Civil War and every war afterwards. The idea that taking care of the household is work for women and that earning other pay (as well) is not is more of a relatively recent and middle to upper class affectation.
And they didn’t need babysitters or two cars in the industrial revolution days either because you lived down the street from the factory and the kids worked there too. 
I haven’t read down-thread, but if no one else has said it:
I remind you, Hillary Clinton looked like the safe candidate in 2016.
I voted for Bernie in the NY primary, but had no problem pulling a lever for Hillary in November '16.
There is zero question in my mind that Elizabeth Warren would make a better president than Trump. Or Pence for that matter.
She does have some administrative experience as the temporary head of the consumer protection agency.
I’d also go for Joe Biden or some other reasonable person.
I want sane, likable, and experienced in government. None of which Trump is.
I’d prefer progressive, but I can live with a middle of the road person if they at least support the ACA, a woman’s right to choose and less belligerent foreign policy posture.