Charles P Pierce- Things in Politico that make me want to guzzle antifreeze...
Oh, Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. Maggie Haberman. Get out of there before they fully activate the microchip.
Haberman's campaign coverage is often the best thing to be found in Tiger Beat On The Potomac. Consequently, it is more than kind of a drag to see her name atop one of that publication's substance-free horse-race clickbait exercises. I know she doesn't write her own headlines. But she should seek out whoever wrote this one and whale on them, because there isn't a smidgen of a scintilla of a drop of evidence in the piece that suggests that Senator Professor Warren is "vexing" Hillary Clinton at all. The kidz in the Village desperately want this catfight, and most of them grew up as writers and thinkers during the extended run of Cirque du Clinton in Washington. They missed out on the really good stuff -- Cattle futures! Billing Records! Fort Marcy Park! -- and, lo and behold, here's another chance to pretend that they're back in the good old days. Also, it would tax the view from nowhere if the Democrats smoothly nominated Clinton while the Republicans had another demo derby in the locked ward like they had in 2012. The kidz might actually have to notice this time. And also, catfight! Mrrrrowwwwrrrr!
Anyway, as I said, this entire piece is based on the fanciful notion that SPW's ferocious campaign against the plutocrats is putting her crossways with Clinton.
Point The First: Warren is the senior senator from Massachusetts. Martha Coakley is running for governor of same. What in the hell difference does it make if SPW "barely mentions" the other superstar on the platform. The point was to rally the folks for Martha, not drop veiled hints about 2016. As to the second thing, so what, squared? Almost every Democratic liberal has made that same point since Clinton first ran in 2008. It doesn't seem to have hurt her standing with the party's base. SPW didn't get a job at Harvard Law by being stupid enough to lie down in front of a train, and Clinton didn't get where she is by being stupid enough to pick a fight she doesn't need. They will get along splendidly.
But this is the part of the story that really broke my heart. Oh, Maggie, I shouldn't have tried...
I've seen SPW give almost 100 speeches in her life, and the one thing she's never been is "untempered," let alone "raw." Reading this, you'd think you were seeing an outtake from All The King's Men. Warren's great gift is to be plain, but never to be simple. She does folksy and funny, not fire and brimstone. She does loud, not raw. If the people respond to her as though they were getting fire and brimstone, that's because she's right about so damn much, and is able to say it in a way that neither talks down to people, nor confuses them. And I'd like anyone still clinging to the notion that there is a substantial constituency on the right where this sentiment exists to please show me the Republican superstar arguing for a new Glass-Steagall Act, or radical relief on student loans. Clock's ticking...
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Senator_Professor_Warren_And_The_Antifreeze_Chronicles
= new reply since forum marked as read
