from truthdig:
The Massachusetts senator’s fiery speech on the Senate floor Friday echoed some of Bernie Sanders’ powerful criticisms of Hillary Clinton. Although Warren hasn’t endorsed any of the Democratic candidates (and is in fact the only female senator not to have endorsed Clinton), that hasn’t stopped speculation.
Politico and others have all but called Warren’s endorsement of Clinton inevitable. However, such an endorsement would seem like a betrayal to the many progressives who support Warren and are far more in line with Sanders’ views than Clinton’s.
The Washington Post points out,
... some observers think Warren maximizes [her] influence by holding off on any endorsement as long as she can.
“The longer she holds out, the more it will push all the candidates, especially those who might not be as good on her issues, to be as strong as possible on them,” Neil Sroka, a spokesman for the progressive group Democracy for America, tells me. “She holds on to that power as long as the candidates continue to vie for her endorsement. In turn, that makes the candidates better for progressives. Everything about Warren suggests that this is her ultimate concern: how do we get our Democratic nominee to be as strong as possible in the fight against income inequality and for Wall Street accountability?” So holding out could keep Clinton worried about shoring up her progressive flank.
In any case, the speech she delivered on the sixth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision underscored her true concerns—essentially the same as Sanders’ central goal: getting big money out of politics.
Watch her excellent, detailed speech about how we can go about accomplishing this goal, below.
6 Comments
Sepacoresays...Excellent subject, points, delivery and overall speech.
LukinStoneAt 9:33: This congress doesn’t lack for workable ideas for how to rout out the influence of money in politics. This congress just lacks the spine to do it.
newtboyIt's not so much that they lack the 'spine' as it is they lack any incentive to do so. If they do nothing, they get handed millions with no repercussions. If they work to remove the influence, they start an unwinnable 'war' with all those 'donors' and all their colleagues, effectively ending their careers and the handouts for nothing.
We should have Federal ballot initiatives, maybe requiring a 2/3 vote to pass, so the people could take some control back of congress and stop allowing them to make the rules they have to play by, and stop allowing them to police themselves as well. It's no surprise that an organization that only answers to itself is corrupt, and the people have not held a Federal politician to task for accepting bribes in decades...that I know of.
So yes, they have many workable ideas on how to solve the problems, but all of those ideas are against their own interests until we change the system.
At 9:33: This congress doesn’t lack for workable ideas for how to rout out the influence of money in politics. This congress just lacks the spine to do it.
LukinStoneI don't necessarily disagree with you, and I don't think your commentary negates Warren's point. And certainly, comments discussions are a good place for hashing out ideas and clarifying points. This wasn't my goal with my earlier comment. I just thought it was a powerful moment and a good soundbite from a larger, poignant speech.
It's not so much that they lack the 'spine' as it is they lack any incentive to do so. If they do nothing, they get handed millions with no repercussions. If they work to remove the influence, they start an unwinnable 'war' with all those 'donors' and all their colleagues, effectively ending their careers and the handouts for nothing.
We should have Federal ballot initiatives, maybe requiring a 2/3 vote to pass, so the people could take some control back of congress and stop allowing them to make the rules they have to play by, and stop allowing them to police themselves as well. It's no surprise that an organization that only answers to itself is corrupt, and the people have not held a Federal politician to task for accepting bribes in decades...that I know of.
So yes, they have many workable ideas on how to solve the problems, but all of those ideas are against their own interests until we change the system.
bobknight33She is right.
Term limits needed - and when done you must have nothing to do with government. At least at these higher levels of government.
Private donations only with a cap.
siftbotMoving this video to enoch's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.