There are some simple answers to Joan Walsh's questions/challenges. 1) why aren't these groups backing Sanders or other candidates: they polled their members and their members weren't excited about Sanders or other candidates. Their members were excited about Warren. These groups are like labor unions, in the sense that the leadership has some autonomy, but they can't do whatever they want. They can't lead people in a direction that they're not willing to be led. Their people are willing to be led on "Draft Warren." They're not willing to be led on draft anybody else.
2) "In addition to advancing the assumption that the Clinton campaign won’t be progressive enough, before she’s even declared her candidacy": I think this is disingenuous apologia for Hillary. Team Hillary has long been putting stuff out in the media clearly indicating directions they want to go - including, spectacularly, promising a more war-prone foreign policy than under Obama - without Hillary having declared as a candidate. At the same time that they were trying to drive other candidates out by repeating over and over that Hillary was inevitable while collecting endorsements, building staff and organization and a huge war chest. 3) "Building a movement around a single political leader rather than around issues..." but this isn't what they're doing at all, this is either an ignorant or a deliberately false misrepresentation. Quite the opposite is true. Every group I know that is part of the "Draft Warren" movement did a "Stand with Warren" alert against the Citigroup provision in the budget bill. Every group I know that is part of the "Draft Warren" movement did a "Stand with Warren" alert against the Antonio Weiss nomination. Every group I know that is part of the "Draft Warren" movement is doing "Stand with Warren" stuff against the TPP. Look again at the paragraph that I posted: > A poll of 800 likely Democratic caucusgoers and primary voters in Iowa > and New Hampshire shows they like Warren’s economic positions: 97% agree > with Warren’s desire to cut student loan rates, 84% agree with her > objections to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, and 77% agree > with her opposition to the Keystone pipeline. > > http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/02/11/draft-warren-group-says-she-has-support-in-early-states/ How is that not about issues? These groups are using every opportunity to talk about issues. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/11/15 7:02 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > A poll of 800 likely Democratic caucusgoers and primary voters in Iowa > > and New Hampshire shows they like Warren’s economic positions: 97% agree > > with Warren’s desire to cut student loan rates, 84% agree with her > > objections to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, and 77% agree > > with her opposition to the Keystone pipeline. > > > > > http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/02/11/draft-warren-group-says-she-has-support-in-early-states/ > > > I happen to like her myself even if her statements on Gaza are terrible. > > The real question is whether anybody like that will ever be president of > the USA. The answer is no. > > Her purpose is instead to create the illusion that change is possible > within the Democratic Party. Joan Walsh of Salon.com has some > interesting things to say even if they are repulsive. As the economic > crisis continues in the USA, there will be more and more disaffection > from corporate Dems like Clinton. As such the role of Warren, or more > feasible candidates as Walsh argues, will be paramount. > > > http://www.salon.com/2015/02/09/the_selling_of_elizabeth_warren_whats_behind_progressives_debilitating_fantasy/ > > I confess my misgivings about all this crystallized Sunday night, when I > heard the news that the Working Families Party had joined the “Draft > Warren” movement. I admire WFP; I think they’re doing exactly what > progressives should be doing: Working within the Democratic Party and > pulling it to the left, not standing outside the party and declaring it > no better than the GOP. > > Predictably, other “Draft Warren” groups hailed the WFP news. Move On > emailed to invite me to share a graphic on Twitter and Facebook that > thanks WFP for joining the movement. “It’s important that we show them > this morning that the number of people who think they absolutely made > the right decision far outweighs the nay-sayers” – that would be me, I > guess. > > In addition to advancing the assumption that the Clinton campaign won’t > be progressive enough, before she’s even declared her candidacy, the > hype about Warren serves to obscure the depth and breadth of the new > populist movement afoot among Democrats in Congress. Why not draft Sen. > Bernie Sanders, who says he’ll run if he believes he has organizational > backing? Or other progressive senators like Sherrod Brown or Al Franken > or Kirsten Gillibrand? Elizabeth Warren is a star in her own right; she > doesn’t particularly need this kind of help. > > It’s also past time to observe that in addition to saying she isn’t > running, Warren hasn’t done anything to build an organization in any of > the early primary or caucus states. Now, presumably “Draft Warren” could > help with that in the unlikely event she changes her mind – but Warren’s > failure to make any of the moves associated with building a campaign is > just one more reason to believe she won’t run. > > I’d love to see a campaign that popularizes Warren’s “eight point plan > to build the middle class” and encourages all Democratic candidates – > including Clinton — to back it. Building a movement around a single > political leader rather than around issues seems like a recipe for > disappointment, especially when that leader has made it so clear she’s > not looking to run for president. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
