Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnybody but Hillary? The case for Warren-Webb in 2016.
http://theweek.com/articles/546124/anybody-but-hillary-case-warrenwebb-2016But there is an alternative, and a damn good one. Two of them, actually: Elizabeth Warren and Jim Webb.
Guys first.
Jim Webb is a genuinely intriguing candidate a war hero and former secretary of the Navy who actually views our country's militaristic foreign policy with skepticism, a champion of the American working class against globalization and "boardroom liberalism," and a passionate advocate for criminal justice reform. On top of that, he voluntarily retired from the Senate after one term, showing that he's far less enamored of political power than most people who run for the presidency. If he can get people to pay attention to his message, Webb just might succeed in wooing back a large chunk of the white (Scots-Irish) middle class to the Democratic Party.
But he's unlikely to do so on his own. Webb's idiosyncratic policy positions combined with his bristly unwillingness to jump through the right "likability" hoops give him limited appeal at the head of a ticket.
More Perspectives James Poulos
Europe's shocking and unsettling future: White pride Michael Brendan Dougherty
Hillary the Terrible? But as Elizabeth Warren's running mate? In that role he'd be fantastic.
I almost can't believe I'm arguing in favor of Warren jumping into the race. She's at least a few clicks to my left. Her populist rhetoric makes me uncomfortable. And she's said very little to indicate that she diverges from the bipartisan Washington consensus in favor of endless warfare.
So why do I find myself hoping that she'll run? Because she would actually give Americans a choice.
Since the economic crisis of 2008, Warren's been the country's foremost critic of the excesses of the financial sector and the banking industry. She makes a compelling case in favor of regulating Wall Street more aggressively, and speaks with passion about surging inequality and the dangers of privately held debt (especially student loans). She's dropped hints that she favors a single-payer health-care system which might make a whole lot of sense if the Rube-Goldberg contraption that is the Affordable Care Act comes crashing down.
Yes, I worry that a government with Warren in the White House and the Republicans in charge of Congress just might grind to a complete halt. But would that be worse than four or eight years of Clintonite triangulation and scandal? I'm not so sure.
As for foreign policy well, let's just say that given her left-leaning preferences in every other area of policy, I don't fully believe Warren's wan statements in defense of the status quo. I think she's probably given foreign affairs little thought, and she's picking her battles. And anyway, in my dream she'd have Jim Webb around to try and convince her to revisit her conventionally hawkish positions.
Purely on ideology, I'd probably prefer a Webb-Warren ticket. But the reality is that Warren beats Webb on charisma and charm any day, and as regular readers are aware, I care quite a bit about the U.S. electing its first female president. Clinton's ambition to shatter this highest of all glass ceilings will give her huge advantages in the race for the nomination and the presidency. If someone is going to challenge her, it needs to be a woman.
Guys first.
Jim Webb is a genuinely intriguing candidate a war hero and former secretary of the Navy who actually views our country's militaristic foreign policy with skepticism, a champion of the American working class against globalization and "boardroom liberalism," and a passionate advocate for criminal justice reform. On top of that, he voluntarily retired from the Senate after one term, showing that he's far less enamored of political power than most people who run for the presidency. If he can get people to pay attention to his message, Webb just might succeed in wooing back a large chunk of the white (Scots-Irish) middle class to the Democratic Party.
But he's unlikely to do so on his own. Webb's idiosyncratic policy positions combined with his bristly unwillingness to jump through the right "likability" hoops give him limited appeal at the head of a ticket.
More Perspectives James Poulos
Europe's shocking and unsettling future: White pride Michael Brendan Dougherty
Hillary the Terrible? But as Elizabeth Warren's running mate? In that role he'd be fantastic.
I almost can't believe I'm arguing in favor of Warren jumping into the race. She's at least a few clicks to my left. Her populist rhetoric makes me uncomfortable. And she's said very little to indicate that she diverges from the bipartisan Washington consensus in favor of endless warfare.
So why do I find myself hoping that she'll run? Because she would actually give Americans a choice.
Since the economic crisis of 2008, Warren's been the country's foremost critic of the excesses of the financial sector and the banking industry. She makes a compelling case in favor of regulating Wall Street more aggressively, and speaks with passion about surging inequality and the dangers of privately held debt (especially student loans). She's dropped hints that she favors a single-payer health-care system which might make a whole lot of sense if the Rube-Goldberg contraption that is the Affordable Care Act comes crashing down.
Yes, I worry that a government with Warren in the White House and the Republicans in charge of Congress just might grind to a complete halt. But would that be worse than four or eight years of Clintonite triangulation and scandal? I'm not so sure.
As for foreign policy well, let's just say that given her left-leaning preferences in every other area of policy, I don't fully believe Warren's wan statements in defense of the status quo. I think she's probably given foreign affairs little thought, and she's picking her battles. And anyway, in my dream she'd have Jim Webb around to try and convince her to revisit her conventionally hawkish positions.
Purely on ideology, I'd probably prefer a Webb-Warren ticket. But the reality is that Warren beats Webb on charisma and charm any day, and as regular readers are aware, I care quite a bit about the U.S. electing its first female president. Clinton's ambition to shatter this highest of all glass ceilings will give her huge advantages in the race for the nomination and the presidency. If someone is going to challenge her, it needs to be a woman.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
12 replies, 892 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
12 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Anybody but Hillary? The case for Warren-Webb in 2016. (Original Post)
uhnope
Apr 2015
OP
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)1. Meh. Webb's had a lot of awful hairstyles in the past.
Rex
(65,616 posts)2. But what did Webb's hair style look like back in the 90s?
Hmmm...I dunno. Look at all that liberal hair!
BUT look at him now! What is up with that conservative haircut! My my...tsk tsk tsk!
Of course I base all my votes on what kind of hair product they use!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)3. Jesus Christ, Warren said she's NOT RUNNING.
dsc
(52,169 posts)4. Webb is a sexist and a homophobe who worked for Reagan in the 80's
It would send the giant message of fuck you to every gay and woman in our party.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)5. Where in the hell is Russ Feingold when you need him?
Jesus Sesame!
marym625
(17,997 posts)8. +1000
zappaman
(20,606 posts)6. Not digging their hairstyles.
cali
(114,904 posts)7. Warren: NOT NOT NOT running. Webb: Sickening. No thanks.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)9. You had better learn to like somebody else real damn quick!
Because Hillary has already picked out her cabinet members and her coronation will not be postponed!!
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)10. Have you managed to make that case convincingly to Elizabeth Warren?
Until and unless that happens, the rest is moot.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)11. The article's author is not the one who posted it here!
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)12. I am not sure. Can you throw together a montage of their hairstyles over the past few decades so I
can make an educated decision, please?