As a long time Bernie supporter and a big fan of Elizabeth Warren since her arrival on the political scene a decade or so ago I was hoping for a Sanders endorsement from her and hopefully in time to positively effect the outcome of a few primaries. I finally decided that she must have some very good reason for not giving it. However, now she has refused to answer the question as to whether or not Hillary should agree to release the text of her speeches before Goldman Sachs and other Wall St. brokers. This to me is unfathomable considering her recent history. Can anyone explain what is going on here?
Perhaps she’s pulling a Bernie? I remember when reporters repeatedly asked Bernie about Hillary’s private email scandal and he said, “You have to ask Hillary.” A good answer, so maybe EW feels similar?
Because it is a bullshit question? Who the fuck cares what Hillary said in the speeches? And why should special rules apply to Hillary anyway? H. Clinton doesn’t release the transcripts of the speeches to the various different financial groups because -wait for it- she probably gave basically the same damn speech to all of them. If she released the transcripts there would be bogus parallels to Rubio and much right wing chortling. Par for the course: they criticized Obama for using a teleprompter, while giving Romney a pass for the exact same behavior.
Same thing with the speeches. Huckabee, Trump, Carson and Bush don’t get pressed for shit like this. Only Hillary.
There’s no reason to give this GOP talking point extra oxygen.
I think she does not want to be a factor in the election. She doesn’t talk shit about either candidate.
I think there is a significant difference between Hillary’s position and that of any Republican I know of. Hillary claims that she has been and will continue to be tough on Wall St. and the big banks even though she has taken a lot of money from them, both personally and as political contributions to her campaign and to her PAC’s, not to mention Bill’s foundation. There is no Republican that I know of that has made any such claim. BTW, it is not a GOP talking point so much as it is a Bernie Sanders talking point.
Well the Republicans sometimes claim that they will nevah evah evah have another bank bailout. Talk is cheap.
Look at the substance. Hillary supported the repeal of the carried interest loophole in 2007. She gave speeches during the same year warning about subprime loans and derivatives. Citizens for Tax Justice gives thinks she has a decent track record and the financial industry is studiously neutral about her.
Don’t get me wrong. Warren is better on this because, well, it’s her issue. And she’s a world class expert on bankruptcy and financial regulation. Sanders didn’t get the sort of banking support that Hillary did, but then again he wasn’t the Senator from the US’s financial capital.
Interesting information but not a response to the question which, again, is why does Warren seem to be reluctant to express an opinion on whether Hillary should release the transcript of her Wall St. speeches.
[INDENT][INDENT][After dinner] Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.[/INDENT][/INDENT]
- Elizabeth Warren (2014) in A Fighting Chance
Still doesn’t directly answer the OP’s question, but it does afford some insight. One book review noted that she doesn’t quite say whether she took Summers’ advice, but I say it’s pretty clear that she listened to it. More generally, I can’t see how taking a stance on this petty issue would advance her or the nation’s agenda.
How would that have worked? Liz Warren isn’t delivering anybody Bernie doesn’t already have.
My own WAG is Senator Warren is one of the very few politicians that can speak to the Bernie Sanders crowd that isn’t Bernie Sanders. If he eventually loses there’s going to be a lot of disillusioned liberals which Warren can greatly help in bringing back under the tent.
Wow, do you think she fell for that line?
If someone said that to me, I hope I would laugh in his face. I know I can never be an “insider.” I don’t suppose there’s really a firm “inside” in a world where Donald Trump is anything like a threat. All that noise is just a trick, to make someone keep their mouth shut about the mistakes and the malice of those who might be “insiders.”
Which is of course one of the many reasons that you will never accomplish as much, and advance an agenda as much, as Elizabeth Warren has.
No, like most “rules” it is likely honored more in the breach than in the observation. A more extreme way of advising to choose your battles with care if you actually want to do some good in the world.
It illustrates that as a person she is on the Clinton side of the fence, a pragmatist first, caring more about getting the ideas a better chance of actually being implemented than self-indulgence.
Any number of possible reasons. Here are a couple:
Warren is a Democrat; Sanders is not. We might expect her to be more loyal to party and party front runners than he would be.
More specifically, Warren benefitted enormously from her political party in unseating Scott Brown to win her spot in the Senate. She got a lot of help from both national and state Dems. Sanders was helped by the Dems largely by them staying out of the race. That may also shade the way a person thinks about saying things that might tend to damage the party.
In general I think it’s not safe to assume that Warren and Sanders are two peas in a pod just because they have similar outlooks on some issues. Obviously neither of them is any kind of a Wall Street fan…but in watching and listening to Sanders over these last six months I’d say he would do almost anything to stick it to the Street, regardless of the consequences. I can’t shake the feeling that he’d sacrifice almost any of his other positions if he could get his wishes on Wall Street (heavy heavy taxes, huge regulations, jail for certain executives). I don’t see any reason to assume that Warren is filled with the same level of fury as Sanders is. I think her refusal to endorse Sanders speaks to there being more of a difference in style and goals between the two than many people think.
what is so great about Elizabeth Warren? She says things; she’s achieved nothing in politics/government.
She’s almost single-handedly responsible for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The importance and power of that body is indicated by the vehemence with which the right wing continues to oppose it: its Director was hauled in for questioning again by Congress just this week.
Ms. Warren was the logical person to head the Bureau she created but the threat of a Republican filibuster prevented her appointment.
HTH. DerekMichaels00, why don’t you tell us who your favorite Senator is and what he’s achieved?
I think it’s very simple: Bernie Sanders never had a chance for the nomination. Why endorse a guaranteed loser?