How much does Hillary Clinton want to be president? Enough to go the full Warren?

The best argument that Hillary Clinton won’t run for president in 2016 is that she will wake up one day and realize what a caricature she would have to become in order to win the nomination from today’s Democratic Party.

Actually, make that: what a caricature she is becoming:

Goldman Sachs, KKR, Fidelity and others might want some of their money back. They sure as heck created at least two jobs for once-and-future politicians on the speech-giving circuit.

The usual Clinton defenders immediately screamed “out of context!” And it’s true that this thought, such as it was, came in between a line about raising the minimum wage and a line about tax cuts for “the top and for companies that ship jobs overseas.” So, along with this line about jobs being created by something other than corporations and businesses, we have Clinton:

1. Reminiscing about when she “voted to raise the minimum wage” as a senator in 2007, after which “(m)illions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were more secure” — but ignoring that these minimum-wage increases were concurrent with the economy going into the toilet. There weren’t a whole lot more families earning more or feeling more secure circa 2008 or 2009 — but there were a lot more people consigned to minimum-wage jobs!

2. Indulging the same kind of economic know-nothingism that we’ve suffered through here in Georgia, which requires one to ignore that the decline of American manufacturing continued apace during her husband’s presidency even though he supposedly “brought arithmetic” to Washington.

3. Neglecting to mention that, even after adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage remained higher last year than in all but two years of Bill Clinton’s presidency — while the top marginal tax rate is just as high as it was during the Clinton years.

Why is Hillary resorting to shifting not only herself but her husband’s presidential record to the left? I think it’s because, to use a football analogy, she is that wide receiver running across the middle of the field who drops the ball after hearing footsteps … the footsteps of Elizabeth Warren.

Warren, the professor turned first-term U.S. senator, epitomizes the hard-left fantasy of what a Democrat ought to be. She’s a career academic who views the real world through ivory-tinted glasses and preaches a highly ideological populism. If you want to see more U.S. companies trying to move their headquarters (and more) outside the United States, more capital sidelined on foreign shores instead of being injected into the American economy, more small businesses unable to get the credit they need while low-income home buyers get more than they can afford, and more of everything Barack Obama promised but couldn’t always deliver, then you want Elizabeth Warren to be the next president.

Faced with this prospect, Hillary Clinton could either try to nudge her party back toward the center it has steadily abandoned since her husband was elected. Or she could decide that one lesson of her 2008 primary loss to a more left-wing opponent was: If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.

Her statement that corporations and businesses don’t create jobs is a pretty clear sign she knows she’ll need to take the latter route to win.

If she goes that way, Warren might decide not to run. But then Hillary would be the one who has to explain why her party’s economic philosophy sounds more and more like something a comedian would say.

She would also be the one who has to explain that the economy is driven by middle-class workers whose paychecks come from … something other than corporations and businesses. And that they get these paychecks to make or sell products that come from … something other than corporations and businesses. And how the first step in economic growth comes from people buying something, not from people taking risks and forming corporations and businesses to offer that something in the first place.

Maybe she wants to be president that badly. We should find out soon enough.

Reader Comments 0

118 comments
CuriousPrime
CuriousPrime

Clinton going "full Warren" sure looks better for the American people than Christy or Walker going "full Rafael (Cruz).

straker
straker

Rafe  "surely, we have people with some new ideas and approaches"


Those at the level of Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ike won't come near American politics now.


Who can blame them?

Penses
Penses

@straker


FDR and JFK should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Lincoln. I don't know about you, but I see all adulterers (especially habitual ones like FDR and LBJ) as despciable people. FDR was a liar, an egotist and ill-suited for the presidency. He greatly increased the size of our government without ever getting us out of the Great Depression. He sold us SS as a "trust fund", which it in fact was not (the biggest lie a president has ever told). And JFK became president mainly because his very wealthy father made it happen.

Trefusis
Trefusis

@straker  A postscript on Lincoln in his mode as a surprisingly wealthy and manipulative presidential aspirant.  He lacked FDR's advantage of a distinguished record and a popular name (Sixth cousin, thrice removed from TR, but married to TR's favorite niece, so, no small beer) and Jack's sort of backing (iinitally, Joe and Robert)--I mean, Abraham was bereft of advantages of this kind.  Still, he was a corporate attorney who had money and, unlike his wife, knew how to handle it to get what he wanted.  He in fact turned to Madison Avenue, which gave him good service as it happened.  I speculate that today he'd come closest but still not take the prize because after all he gained the top spot, split-ticket, by the smallest plurality in our history, 38.8 percent, causus belli.  He'd be a hammerhead shark in today's game of electoral politics, but unlike the baritone, "audioanimitronic" rubber robot.  There's no way that Lincoln could be more than momentarily disoriented by today's weird badness because he was a profitable futurist himself and wanted a lot of this to happen and in fact prepared for it.  Hell the University of Georgia owes its existence largely to him.  It was he who nursed and ultimately enacted the Morrill Act, which ultimately enabled the formation of that institution on a matching-grant scheme in which my great grandfather Thomas May happily participated by donating one of his farms, in Athens.  "Grandfather Thomas" was the son of a Lieutenant in the Continental Army who, upon his discharge, was granted land over there in lieu of cash.  And Thomas, I might add, was a Republican when Lincoln was still a Whig from Springfield.  It's sort of a wonderful lava lamp, our politics.  I pray, by intention.

Trefusis
Trefusis

@straker  Each of them still would do, for selfish reasons, and Lincoln might actually come close.  He was by far the savviest campaigner of the three, really formidable and ultramodern.  Lately I have thought that JFK circa '63 is exactly what the Doctor on High (Aquinas?  Luke?  Machiavelli?) would prescribe for us just now.  My guess is that you actually are asking what the market could bear.  And it ain't a pretty picture, the American electorate.  They're too schooled up.  Stupefied by design, sorta.

Trefusis
Trefusis

@straker  Lemme try to sorta turn that inside-out, a stunt JFK called "the reversible raincoat".  This day, Lincoln still would run out of ambition.  FDR still would stump out of some sort of hereditary drive, and Jack because of his dad's bayonet at his feeble back.  So my question is, frankly, how might any of them fare?  My bet's on Lincoln to gain the nomination of his party but lose in the general.  FDR I guess would be stopped shortly after New Hampshire, and JFK I could see racking up a good many delegates but he'd end up slain by the Nation's lone nut, The National Enquirer, onnacounta his Satyriasis.  Certainly I agree with you that there is no longer any demand for candidates whose potential for greatness (whatever that means) is not immediately evident. 


Truly I think that Abe could take the top spot even today, but then I'm thinking of Abe the savvy lawyer and wily candidate.  In 1860 he went so far as to launder money to hire one of the very first ad firms, which actually was located on Madison Avenue (!) to, as he put it in his brief contract, "package my candidacy".  So, 150 years ago he already was outsourcing his campaign and applying to it the word "package" in its verbal tense.  To me, that's eerily Modern.  And so what did the package contain?  Well, some graphical samples and some slogans, chief among which were these: "Abraham Lincoln, the Rail Candidate" and "Lincoln, Candidate of the Rails".   


Do you see what the hirelings in New York were trying to do for the aspirant from Springfield, in effort to spin a silk purse from a sow's ear?  Anybody outside of Illinois and Kentucky who'd read of Lincoln in the papers vaguely remembered him, if at all as the axe-wielding "rail-splitter", which descriptor was Lincoln's own invention and a good one, as the device seated him in Congress. However, years later, Abe knew that he was from the Farm Leagues, so he turned to sophisticates in NYC.  (He did not lack money; in 1859 his clients retained him at five thousand a pop, mainly to lobby the Legislature, and that's good money even today, for such non-work.)   


Lincoln literally purchased the slogan, "The Rail Candidate", and effectively won with it.  The slogan capitalized on the rail-splitting bumpkin thing whilst transforming it into that era's great symbol of Modernity, railroads.  The Age of the Automobile, the Jet Age, the Space Age.  Yanks have a back-slapping way with self-promotion, and Lincoln was expert in that weird science.  When he made the presidential run, it was the Age of Rail, or the Rail Age.  The Republican rump group in fact had coalesced as pro-RR cabal of proactive Whigs. 


Basically, the idea of crisscrossing, transcontinental railroading was such a vast ambition that it necessitated the invention of public/private financing, and Abraham Lincoln, over in Illinois, was one of the four inventors of the modern combination, the system of corporate finance, so he knew the stuff backwards and forwards.  Very little of it is still legal, but hey.  Whitewater off a duck's back, right?


So Abraham was in my view the shrewdest of the three you nominate, and yet here's why I guess he'd get the nomination and not win the Presidency.  In all our history he was the POTUS who took office with the smallest plurality, 38.8 percent.  He was a stealth candidate, a third-party gamble.  Very high-stakes Poker.  In Today's terms it would be like electing Ben Carson.

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

I think you're right perhaps in a way you don't understand.  Ben Carson is too well known, and Lincoln wasn't nominated in the same way that Carson would be today.  Lincoln won a floor fight in Chicago for the nomination.  Despite his political skill, he was not very well-known nationally. 

Someone like Carson might, say, make speeches and be famous for doing so, as was Lincoln, but politics are handled very different today by our much more cynical and shrewd "handlers." 

No, the tactic would be to say as little as possible, vaguely promising everything without specifically committing to  anything. 

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

I just watched the video for the first time. Eegads!

She comes off as very contrived.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

Running this rejected wanna be again, is like the GOP trotting Romney out for one more spin.


Surely, we have people with some new ideas and approaches in both parties, but maybe not. 

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

re: 'Faced with this prospect, Hillary Clinton could either try to nudge her party back toward the center it has steadily abandoned since her husband was elected."


Agreed. It would be nice if the Democrats would step away from being Republican-lite on most things these days. More (sensible) left of center voices need to be heard in this center-right world we call the USofA. 


As you say, Goldman, KKR and Fidelity might want their money back should that happen . . . and IMHO that wouldn't be a bad thing at all . . .

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@Kyle_Wingfield @consumedconsumer just scanned it. 


god, I don't want hillary clinton to run. I don't like dynasties in a democratic republic. goes for the bushes too - can't we just move on? 


I don't like what the Clintons did to the Democratic party. They became corporatists. We only need one party to be that and the gop were - and continue to be - doing it just fine. 


IMHO the Clintons ushered in the era of corporate democrats. He called it triangulation. Yippee. Managed to "get some stuff done" . . . but I question the stuff they got done. And I also question why the right hated him so. NAFTA led to all the other FTAs - which while good for this or that sector, weren't good for workers. Tough on crime - the millions of lives wasted, here and abroad, over plants that get people high and the drug cartels created by outlawing something that's easily transportable (as if prohibition taught us nothing). The botched health care of Ms. Clinton. The unbelievable waste of a 2nd term because he couldn't keep his pants zipped. We could go on and on.


Yet most everybody wants her on the "left" . . . it drives me insane.



Trefusis
Trefusis

@consumedconsumer  Probably we both grew up with the chestnut about how the two major parties are the same.  Dunno about you but I ever construed that as an excuse for not showing up at the polls.  I'm not sure you're wise in complaining of the two coming together even to the point of more closely resembling one another. Honestly what is your apprehension in this?  I get that it's

likely not to turn out well, but what's the harm in the comity? 


Are you saying that you want policymakers who will try to make a fresh breast of it, a breakaway?  Because if that's what you mean, then sign me up please.  The crooked places made straight and the rough places, plain, and all Flesh shall see it together, Democrat and Republican alike. 


Not gunna and you know it.  But what should we do meanwhile?  For some years now I don't see what else other than sort of cavalry strikes of radicalism, meaning external demonstrations by contrast of how very tragically counterproductive are the services rendered by a central government.

lvg
lvg

Hilary has more baggage to unload and explain than a fully loaded 747.

Trefusis
Trefusis

@lvg A fricking C-17 couldn't house her skeletons, and I very much appreciate your point.  The next Prez will be, like this one, the person with the least history.  I agree.

Jazzpman
Jazzpman

LOL Kyle we have a guy running for Senator who made his living OUT SOURCING, and you are blaming Clinton ?  WOW !

TheRealGetReal
TheRealGetReal

@Jazzpman 

Boy have you fallen for the Nunn ad campaign...made a living outsourcing...give me a friggin break..

Let's have a Senator that is a CEO of a charity....free money all around

Jazzpman
Jazzpman

@TheRealGetReal @Jazzpman Well if you feel you could run a Non profit, and do it well enough it doesn't close down, and you could help a bunch of folks, more POWER to you


If you think a guy who made his millions closing American factories, and out sourcing US jobs, can create jobs, then well I guess you think like a typical Republican.

Kyle says a $10 and hour job is a joke, and not a good job, no matter what happens to an area that a factory closes.

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@Jazzpman "Kyle says a $10 and hour job is a joke, and not a good job, no matter what happens to an area that a factory closes."

Boy, you sure know how to say something ridiculous, and then turn it against me when I point out how ridiculous it was.

You said those jobs were "Better American jobs." I pointed out your exaggeration. I never said those jobs were "a joke," or "not a good job," or that it doesn't matter if a factory like that closes.

I get really tired of having people distort my own words just to bolster their own silly arguments. At some point, those people's comments don't get published here anymore.

Jazzpman
Jazzpman

@Kyle_Wingfield @Jazzpman Ok Please let me know why a $10 and hour making pillow cases in America in a rural community, not a better job ?  Thank you !

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@Jazzpman In any case, my beef is less about your argument -- which you're welcome to try to make -- than with your blatant distortion of what I wrote -- which isn't welcome.

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@Jazzpman Let's not pretend like you were talking about one place. You cast a pretty wide net there.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

"these minimum-wage increases were concurrent with the economy going into the toilet."


oh fer cryin' out loud.


Really hard to keep reading after seeing that.

RoadScholar
RoadScholar

More fear from the cons! Surprised? No! That's all they have!

Trefusis
Trefusis

What a smart, hard-headed column, Kyle Wingfield.  Clearly you are fully recovered from Crud and I'm thankful.


Personally I am not inclined to seek a Democrat for the next presidency but were I so inclined, Elizabeth Warren definitely is my favorite Native American in the running.  But seriously I completely agree with your thesis viz Hillary Clinton.  And incidentally there's something about Michelle Nunn that's more Clintonian than is Hillary and so I fear she's an unstoppable liar who probably will become Georgia's Governor in a few years, after she loses the senate runoff in January.


The third character in your compare-and-contrast structure is our President.  You really are pressing a weak spot there, insofar as Hillary Rodham and Liz Warren both were well trained, highly prized, and somewhat hyperactive attorneys whereas Barry Obama played one on TV.  When he was elected Editor of the Harvard Law Review he still had not bothered to submit an article to it.  The staff there remembered him as a constant presence in the Review's office but never in the lecture halls.  Ms, Warren and Ms.Rodham Clinton both are, within the legal guild, quite different from the nonsense of our present pseudo Professor of a-constitutionality.


Ironically, Senator Warren on paper is more like President Clinton than is Hillary.  Unlike Bill, who came to it via the nose, Liz already is triangulating, which is how one can be certain of her presidential aspirations.  If we must suffer another Democrat, then I personally am comfortable with Warren's thinking, merely because I understand it.  However, none of these persons especially has the truth in her and my gut sez the People want for someone who tells the truth, even if the truth-teller be a bit of a doofus.  Not that this factoid matters: This sort of thing has happened at least a couple times in the Nation's history.  The rejection of jurisprudential poobahs in favor of the boy next door. 


Here's how wide the gulf: FDR very deliberately downplayed the fact that he had been an indifferent attorney; Barack Obama deliberately has billed himself as a Professor of Law, which claim of senior tenure is miraculous for a young visiting Lecturer at the University of Chicago.  I love this country as much as my right hand, and I am right-handed.  So I just want our next president to be someone of honorable character, a teller of truth.  A Jimmy Carter.  "We told the truth.  We kept the Peace.  We obeyed the Law"  --Vice President Mondale

bu2
bu2

@Trefusis 

A Jimmy Carter?!?!


I hope you are just talking about character.  He is a fine man.  His grandson didn't learn any of those traits.

But Carter was the worst president of the last century.

Trefusis
Trefusis

@bu2 @Trefusis  Were you on my patio and sitting with me beside the BBQ I'd nod to each of your points and mean it.  As to Jason, I quit.  President Carter, I'm a little ashamed to admit, since he and our First Lady both are vibrant, I had used strictly as a metaphor.  And that's a bit too casually inhumane but I guess you see what I man, in that even after that disastrous presidency Fritz fairly could claim those three, utterly straightforward things.  Clearly Mondale was affirming a standard but also demarking a line. It was a fair valediction and I am less certain than you maybe that any Presidential administration since has met all three of Mr. Mondale's measures,. 


Now we're in something else, through the passage of time.  No one in power any longer thinks of public service so simply and categorically as did presidents Carter, Regan and GWHB.  That all ended with Clinton.

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/391130/done-john-doe-george-will

The Will article is prescient, since this Winfeld article is about the Clinton's who will, like the bamster, stop at nothing to silence, buffalo, intimidate, punish and impugn their political foes, nor to take advantage of them physically, with Bill's corrupt and sick addiction to sex.  

The bullying of Hill will equal or exceed the brashness of bamster's using of the IRS, as a 8000 lb political servant, as well as the forwardness of the new black panthers.  

 

Brewmaster1960
Brewmaster1960

If enough people are actually dumb enough to believe that corporations and businesses don't create jobs, then this country will not survive. Pretty scary. Just who does create jobs ? Government ? Government has nothing but the taxes it collects from productive citizens and businesses. 


Hilary's quote might be the dumbest political statement I've ever seen. But many of you angry socialists agree with her. Please just move to Greece. Don't ruin this great country with your bitter, distorted, just plain idiotic understanding of how the business world works to create jobs with such basic economic concepts as supply and demand.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Brewmaster1960 



“Government has nothing but the taxes it collects from productive citizens and businesses." 


What is the government supposed “to have?”


“Don't ruin this great country with your bitter, distorted, just plain idiotic understanding of how the business world works to create jobs with such basic economic concepts as supply and demand.”


It is truly amazing that somebody can call the basic concept of supply and demand an “idiotic understanding.”


RoadScholar
RoadScholar

@Brewmaster1960 Businesses create jobs. So government doesn't create jobs? How about those transportation design and construction/maintenance companies? They earn contracts and pay wages, buy materials, etc. and that money is turned over 7 times! How about building and maintaining government and school buildings and facilities? No jobs there?

JKLtwo
JKLtwo

Everyone knows you never go full warren.


Don't worry about Hillary.  Are Demwits are already lining up to throw her under the bus (again)

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@TheRealGetReal @stands_for_decibels @Captain-Obvious


So you're saying that your brand of brainless bigotry will work in other states.


Somehow I doubt that.


although your farm-fresh example from 1988 does give one pause.

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

Let's see, Hillary will veer left due to pressure from a Warren run?

As a result, she'll lose the moderate vote.

With Jeb Bush waiting in the wings!!??!!

This is going to be a very interesting race.  

Penses
Penses

"Warren, the professor turned first-term U.S. senator, epitomizes the hard-left fantasy of what a Democrat ought to be. She’s a career academic who views the real world through ivory-tinted glasses and preaches a highly ideological populism."


I guess the examples of Wilson, Obama and others are not sufficient to dissuade liberals from this inane predilection (which is kind of like wanting a liberal professor to pilot your plane).


Obama's election was in my view the ultimate instance of Affirmative Action, and the joke of it is he is half-white (funny how you never hear the media referring to figures like Derek Jeter as "black", though he is a mulatto just like Obama). If Obama had been a (completely) "white" man, he would never have been elected.


Both parties need to properly vet candidates and present the voting populace with good choices - not races like you have in Florida for governor.


I voted for GWB twice and roiled my eyes when he first got the GOP nomination (asking myself why him and not someone like Jeb). He was a bad president in my opinion and I don't defend him. If the Democrats had run someone like Zell Miller against him, I would likely have voted Democratic. But they gave me Gore and Kerry as alternative choices.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

I see Gov Deal has now pressed the panic button...Against expert advice


Sigh

Doug_B
Doug_B

"If you want to see more U.S. companies trying to move their headquarters (and more) outside the United States, more capital sidelined on foreign shores instead of being injected into the American economy, more small businesses unable to get the credit they need while low-income home buyers get more than they can afford"


Ridiculous fear-mongering.  Democrats want none of these things and don't promote any agenda that supports these things.  I know you'll disagree, but you're more than a little biased.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

Admit it Kyle – the very thought of Hillary running have you republicans shaking in your Korean slave market faux leather shoes!I hope she does run, and I also hope that Baby Bush runs too – it’ll make a very, very interesting political commentary all around!


RoadScholar
RoadScholar

@DebbieDoRight Let's just get through this election. Let's change the campaign finance law to make these outside groups either show who their financial supporters are, and /or tax the crap out of them esp if they lie! Better yet, get rid of them. If the candidate does not make the ad, they it has to go!

IReportYouWhine
IReportYouWhine

Ten days after I changed it, here's the new avatar all of a sudden. What, pray tell, triggered this technological forward progress?