Comparing Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton

Elizabeth Warren, the “You didn’t do that!” Senator from Massachusetts, and Hillary Clinton, liberal Madam, are the same in certain ways. They’re both uber liberals from the Left. They both think they are “progressive,” although that word has lost all real meaning because of the way the Left uses it to disguise their true intentions, and to mean just what they choose it to mean, neither more nor less. We are not supposed to ask how they can make a word mean so many different things because in their Humpty Dumpty world the only question is who is to be master— that’s all.

It’s how Mrs. Warren and Mrs. Clinton are different that’s of greater interest, though.

Hillary Clinton is a sawhorse for gaining and holding power over the American people. That is what animates her, and that is only what animates her. She believes, as all narcissists do, that her quest for power is a noble cause and she means to get it and hold it by any means necessary.  Thus, when a Leftist journalist (is there any other kind) asked her at a Westhampton Beach book signing what she thought of the Ferguson kerfuffle, she ignored the question and walked away without answering. She’s very  careful about making statements on such things until she is sure which way the wind is blowing. That’s a politician who doesn’t have a set of principles she wants to champion, she just wants to win and hold power and will say whatever she thinks she needs to say to get as much support as possible. Her problem is that she lacks her husband’s skills to pull it off.

In similar circumstances, Elizabeth Warren probably would have jumped on the chance to stand up on her soap box and spew diabolical incantations of her Leftist goals, letting everyone know just where she stands.  As Hunter Lewis (Against Crony Capitalism) has said, Warren does not descend into oily evasiveness as do other politicians.  I like that phrase, “oily evasiveness,” it seems to fit Hillary Clinton to a tee.

I’ve heard conservative commentators say that even though they disagree with everything Elizabeth Warren believes, they are impressed that she knows exactly what she believes and is willing and able to articulate to everyone exactly what she wants to do for them, or perhaps to them.  Elizabeth Warren is a true believer and a firebrand.  As such she can be much more of a danger to conservatives because she can move people to her cause in a way Hillary cannot.  This is partly due to the excess baggage Clinton has picked up over the last 25 years, and also because she lack her husbands political savvy that “oily evasiveness” will eventually be seen through by some voters.

Warren has outlined several of what she calls “tenets of progressivism” in a July 18 speech before Netroots Nation. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton ever outlining her “ten-point plan” or “tenets of Clintonism?” Not a chance. She knows that the minute you give too many details about what you plan to do you are giving others an opportunity to criticize it. Thus, only the most general statements appealing to emotion are ever going to come out of her mouth. Warren is different. She seems to relish standing up and fighting with conservative critics. Warren is not one to scream, “At this point, what difference does it make?” Warren wants to tell you what difference she intends to make and she’s eager to tell you how and why.

Hunter Lewis has done something magnificent and given a valuable gift to any Republican who ever debates Warren. On his website, Against Crony Capitalism, Lewis has set forth several of Warren’s tenets along with his suggestion of pertinent questions to throw back at her.

Here is one I especially like:

4. “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”

What if someone can’t get a full-time job, perhaps because of Obamacare. Do they get no help?

And how will an increase in the minimum wage help those who can’t get any job because of the minimum wage? How will this help teenagers or other young people get their first job?

The great progressive president Franklin Roosevelt intervened to keep wages high during the Great Depression. The result was that those who succeeded in keeping their jobs were even better off than before while millions of others were thrown out of work and had nothing.

Go to Against Crony Capitalism to read them all. If Republicans were smart (they aren’t) they’d be reading all this and taking heed. If Democrats were smart (they are) they’d nominate Elizabeth Warren in 2016 and not Hillary Clinton. I sure hope they don’t.

  • One Hand Clapping

    Sharp post.

    • TeeJaw

      ¡Muchas Gracias, Senora!