Next up: Elizabeth Warren
During a recent conversation, I have heard two diametrically opposite views on Elizabeth Warren and her prospects of running for president:
1) "The only thing that can stop Hilary Clinton becoming president is... Elizabeth Warren."
2) "I just don't see Warren viable this election cycle. She would certainly splinter the base and threaten any attempt to retake control of the House."
This has made me curious. So I investigated a little further.
First of all, who's Elizabeth Warren? And who needs to know? First and foremost, all "patients" who have been stung by bank(ster)s reaching into their pockets in one form or another, and then getting away with it (and even using taxpayer bailout money to distribute bonuses among their staff for a "job well done" in tanking the global financial system).
No doubt, Wall Street is somewhat concerned about Elizabeth Warren now being present in the federal Senate. She was a main factor for the creation of the federal institution that is entrusted with the task of protecting customers in the financial sphere, and now her election for Senator would certainly stimulate her desire to introduce banking reform and new rules in the banking loans system. She has focused on three points: 1) usury; 2) profiteering through deception and fraud; 3) the role of rules in any system, particularly the banking system, and the importance of respecting those rules - and the role of the state as the institution that defines those rules, and subsequently enforces them. Yes, she is a "big government" believer if we are to use the typical conservative talking-point terminology - but a government that genuinely serves its people, not its elites.
And as such, I believe she has no chance of becoming president. Sadly. Either she will be promptly squashed under the weight of the system, or she will rather enter the system, figure that the only way to try to reform it is to join it and play by its rules (which are often dirty) - and will eventually be compelled to start making compromises with her principles, which will ultimately dilute her mission, and thus doom it to failure.
Apart from that, it is truly remarkable how Ms Warren has focused a lot of hopes and expectations upon herself, which is indicated by the 40 million dollars that her campaign managed to garner, mostly through small private donations. This indeed speaks of an overwhelmingly grassroots character of her base (as opposed to the Koch-style super-PAC conglomerates), although there have been progressive PACs that have contributed to her campaign as well. In a way, she may remind of the "early Obama", the community organiser who used to enthrall the public, and inspire them to get involved in politics.
Her main weapon is her honesty and the firmness of her principles. She believes that a set of clear and transparent rules are what would level the game between the vastly powerful banking sector and ordinary American families. The problem is, DC does not tolerate such sort of politicians, and tends to find ways to tear them apart, chew them, and finally spit them out, utterly wasted and defeated - or conversely, transformed into something their original supporters would be disgusted from. And I'm talking of both parties here, because, from the perspective of the 99% and the 1%, they are both part of the establishment. And the elite would not relinquish its stranglehold on the political process, and hence, its dominion on society.