General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why on Earth should we nominate a presidential candidate who voted for war with Iraq? [View all]cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And the more she speaks to people, whether in a campaign or in a debate, this knowledge will come out more and more and show her to be the "real deal" and not someone that's just mouthing talking points about what the middle class is facing. We've already seen many clips of news interviews here of her smacking down "journalists" who she exposes as being these kind of people.
Why should she be stupid enough waving a "I'm a candidate for president" flag now, when she's only in the first part of her first term as senator. That wouldn't rub very well with those of Massachusetts who would feel more that she was using this job as a stepping stone then. If she continues to work hard as senator for the next couple of years, and then announces after she's "coaxed" by many to do so, then she will be looked more on as someone who's feeling like she's being "called for duty" rather than "seeking the job". And to be honest, I think she might be happy continuing being a senator. But I think many close to her could persuade her that she has a rare opportunity to make a difference at a national level that we all as Americans need, not just those she represents in Massachusetts. I think that in that context, those in Massachusetts will support her as well.
I think someone who understands the history as well as she's shown to be in the video clip here, will have far more ability to draw that blueprint of where to go and how it will be done. And from what I've seen so far in her efforts towards legislation, I think she's trying to act in that capacity.
Now the Senate still is lead by a do nothing Harry Reid, and the House of course is dead now. But that could change in 2014 too, especially if the Tea Party carries through on their threats to stay home for that election, and perhaps give the Democrats a gift that they gave Republicans in 2010.
"Pummel the current administration"? Hmm... I support Obama in areas he has made a difference in the right direction, like gay rights, etc. But let's face it, areas like gay rights aren't what the corporatist backers care about too much, so he can work more for his base in those areas than he can in the areas they want to pull the strings (like prosecuting banksters that Obama and Holder can't even seem to do as good a job in doing as Reagan did with the Savings and Loan crisis, and instead prosecute more whistleblowers for espionage than all administrations collectively before them). Obama is pummeling himself for those Democrats that have principles and aren't just "yes men" for what he does because he's "on our team" as if this was a football game.