*Contrary to his fellow host of The Cycle, Krystal Ball, MSNBC host Touré backed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run for the presidency in 2016 over freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Touré said that Clinton has the requisite experience to be president and is more “electable” than Warren. Furthermore, he added, imposing a purity test on candidates is how the Democrats lost the presidential elections of the 1980s and why the Republican Party has recently been unable to recapture the upper chamber of Congress…* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
*Read more here from Noah Rothman / Mediaite: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/toure-backs-electable-hillary-over-inexperienced-elizabeth-warren/
Comments
You make some good points, Cenk. Although, they should be put in the proper context in relation to what the political climate was at the time. 1980-1992 is not a “long, loooong time ago.” These elections still hang in the air as lessons to Democrats. During the 1980 election, Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy, a more progressive candidate. This did a great amount of damage to Carter, who was the sitting president. We don’t see challenges like that anymore. In 1984, Democrats elected another liberal in Mondale and he was trounced. 1988 saw similar results. You can’t discount these elections and then bring up FDR. That’s silly.
In proper context, I think the 2008 general election wasn’t so much a backing of Obama’s liberal policies as much as it was a rejection of the war-mongering, royalist Republicans and Bush. I think the country would have voted for a piece of paper that read, “Republicans suck,” before voting for another Republican that was a Bush clone. Additionally, the 2008 Dem primary was very close. Hillary didn’t get trounced. Plus, they really didn’t differ on much of anything. Obama was not “waaaay to the left of Hillary.” When given an opportunity to withdraw troops from Iraq in 2007, they both voted no. The reason Obama ended up winning during the primary was due to his grassroots organizing, delegates and superdelegates, and the fact that he was viewed as “not part of the establishment” (Didn’t have a name like Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, etc.). As for Pres. Obama’s reelection in 2012, I’m not sure one can count this as an election of a liberal. As you’ve noted in other videos, Obama turned out to be center-right in his “preferences.” I think logical Americans see this and understand he is not liberal in many ways, allowing them to vote for the center-right candidate and against the reactionary Republican. In the same context, FDR’s election was another radical response to royalists within the Republican party and the fact that they caused the Great Depression. This is similar to the 2008 election and the crash of 2007, Iraq, and the countless other scandals in which Bush’s administration was involved.
Either way, I essentially disagree with both of you. I don’t think Democrats should back a candidate, because he or she seems safe. Warren can obviously hold her own on any stage, and she has tenacity when it comes to staring down cronyism and corruption. On the other hand, I don’t think Hillary is weak in any way, nor would she get “rolled-over” by Republicans were she to be the Dem’s candidate. She was Secretary of State and a Senator for nearly 10 years. Her voting record and accomplishments while in the Senate are mostly liberal, too. She voted against Roberts and Alito, and she voted against the Bush tax cuts. Clinton is more progressive than the media thinks. Thanks, Wikipedia. Either way, it’d be nice to see a primary with Warren and Clinton. I think they’d both be better for it. Warren certainly brings up pertinent issues that don’t get much press. They are both amazing at what they do. Perhaps Warren could move Clinton’s position on the finance industry and its corruption.
I do think that Clinton would have a better shot during the 2016 general election, though. The midterms this year scare me immensely. In this political climate, I believe the Dems best chance is with the candidate that exudes strength in foreign policy, has deep experience, and is distinguished and vetted in the national spotlight. I don’t think anything is safe for Dems over the next 2-3 years, but Clinton gives them a better shot.