Sunday Open Thread [7.20.14]

Filed in National by on July 20, 2014

New York Times:

“Today, as a wave of unaccompanied minors fleeing Central America poses a new crisis for Congress and the White House, Republicans are struggling to calibrate a response that is both tough and humane, mindful of the need to reconcile their freighted history with Hispanic voters and the passions of a conservative base that sees any easing of immigration rules as heresy.”

“Some senior Republicans are warning that the party cannot rebuild its reputation with Hispanics if it is drawn into another emotional fight over cracking down on migrants — especially when so many are young children who are escaping extreme poverty and violence. But pleas for compassion and even modest proposals for change are dividing the party, and setting off intense resistance among conservative Republicans who have resisted a broader overhaul of immigration.”

Joshua Green gives three reasons why it’s safe to assume Hillary Clinton will be the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee:

1. “Clinton is insanely popular among Democrats, now more than ever… That’s higher than any conceivable Democratic challenger, and it doesn’t even factor in the big advantage she has in resources and experience.”

2. “Clinton doesn’t have the kind of glaring vulnerability with Democrats she did last time around because of her vote in favor of the Iraq War.”

3. “Clinton’s strength in 2008 was always exaggerated by hubristic political consultants and the legions of journalistic lemmings who accepted their claims uncritically.”

But that doesn’t mean Elizabeth Warren shouldn’t run. She should. But she shouldn’t win. John Dickerson:

“If Warren joined the race, she would not win, but she would till the ground, putting grit and the smell of earth in the contest. She would energize the Democratic Party’s liberal base, which would then stir up other Democrats who seek to moderate or contain that group. Warren would challenge the Democratic Party on issues like corporate power, income inequality, and entitlements. She would be a long shot and she would have nothing to lose–which means she could keep talking about those ideas out loud. Because Clinton is close to Wall Street and finance executives and Warren is gunning for them, she has the potential to put campaign pressure on Clinton that other candidates can’t. Clinton and other candidates would be forced to explain where they stood more than if Warren weren’t in the race.”

“Whether you agree with Warren’s ideas or whether she would even make a good president is immaterial to the benefits of her candidacy. She would keep the campaign lively and focused on ideas.”

About the Author ()

Comments (3)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. cassandra_m says:

    Ready for Warren was launched this week, I think.

  2. auntie dem says:

    Anybody want to start looking for Warren headquarters over in Newark? There are a lot of empty store fronts in the Path Mark shopping center. We’ve been pains in the butt before — ten years ago — we would be even better at it this time. ;o)

  3. Jim C. says:

    Let’s get behind Bernie Sanders. Between Ms. Warren and Bernie they’ve got to push Hillary away from coddling Wall Street to actively working to reform the banksters. I am personally uncomfortable with H’s corporate ties. Under Bill, look what what happened: NAFTA, CAFTA, SHAFTA, de-regulation, repeal of Glass-Steagal, the discovery of welfare queens.. Basically the entire administration sold out to the corporations. Its not to say it was entirely bad, there was some trickle down and the economy grew, but, it grew faster for those higher up on the food chain than it did for you and I.

Switch to our mobile site