@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:Generally I'm more interested in the pragmatic/ commonality/ compromise/ empathy/ thoughtful candidates than the firebrands. I think the former tend to actually get more done, at the end of the day. And she strikes me as more of the latter.
You must have forgotten the George Bush Jr administration. Bush wasn't your empathetic, pragmatic, common-sense, thoughtful guy. And yet, he got a lot of things done. You and I disapprove of all those things, of course, but the point is he got them done. The Bush Jr administration was
not driven by people like George Bush Sr, Jim Baker, Colin Powell, or Bob Dole, the types
you would support if you were a Republican. It was driven by . . . the Louis Farrakhans of the Republican Party? The Gloria Steinems of the Republican party? Oh wait, neither of those two could ever become a Democratic leader these days. Indeed, I'm not sure they're even Democrats.
And that leads me to my main issue. The Democratic party may have Elizabeth Warren, but it simply does not have extremists like Trent Lott in any position of power. Democrats already
are the compromise party. They are now well to the right of Richard Nixon. In most European countries they'd be the conservative party. Compromise is nice, but only up to a point. The Democrats are currently beyond this point. And that's why America needs people like Elizabeth Warren leading the Democratic party.
