Elizabeth Warren says Barack Obama does not understand the “lived experience of most Americans”

[glenn1]

Was wondering when the Democratic infighting would start. While having Trump as a common enemy might keep a lid on things for a while you know that it wouldn't ultimately resolve the struggle for the soul of the party. Interesting this is coming now and I wonder if Warren is beginning to posture herself for a POTUS run in 2020 or 2024. There's quite a few folks here who certainly are lusting after her brand of "stick it to the rich guys" and hoping for some of that sweet, sweet economic redistribution moolah.

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/01/gia...nderstand-lived-experience-of-most-americans/

Elizabeth Warren says Barack Obama does not understand the “lived experience of most Americans”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., criticized former President Barack Obama and her own political party for selling out to corporate donors and failing to stay in touch with the working class in an interview with The Guardian on Monday.[/B]

“I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talks about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” Warren told the magazine, “that GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans … And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy.”

“Worse than being left behind, they’re getting kicked in the teeth,” she added.

<snip>

 

[theeedude]

They are kicking themselves at the teeth at the voting booth, or by sitting at home. But of course a black guy is to blame. Can't possibly be them.

 

[dank69]

Yeah I heard Obama grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth so has no idea the struggle of real Americans. As much as I like Warren she can be a real fucking retard sometimes.

 

[pauldun170]

That is not infighting
That's message building in prep for 2018 and 2020

Expect all the rank and file to start including similar messages.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Not sure why Obama is her target. Should be Hillary since she's the one that lost to Trump, not Obama. Obama wasn't the best, but he certainly wasn't the worst, and he definitely wasn't Trump or Hillary.

 

[Maxima1]

Barry Soetoro "hope and change" never came. He was a corporate Dem. He almost gave us Simson-Bowles grand bargain. Ironically, it was the Tea Party nutjobs that prevented it. He also did other things like put up Garland who was over 60 and wouldn't have withdrawn him despite his age and the likelihood Garland would have done little for Citizens United.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's obvious that the rich guys have been sticking it to the rest of us since Reagan as evidenced by explosive inequality. It's also obvious that we can't turn that around doing things the way they want.

 

[dullard]

Warren was correct. I would have a hard time naming a single person appointed by Obama who wasn't ivy-league educated or at least coastal-based (with the rare exception of an agriculture secretary). Obama was isolated in an ivory tower. He virtually ignored the midwest and great plains states entirely. Guess where Trump had big gains.

Trump gains over Romney were biggest in these states: North Dakota, Iowa, West Virginia, South Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Montana, Indiana, Wyoming, Missouri, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Virtually all of those are in the center of the US where Obama rarely visited, rarely talked about (other than the auto industry which was actually bailed out by Bush even though republicans hated it and democrats loved it), rarely listened to, and rarely appointed anyone for anything.

If you only focus on ivy-league advisors, you aren't listening to the bulk of the US.

 

[Pens1566]

Well, she'd be wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

Barry Soetoro "hope and change" never came. He was a corporate Dem. He almost gave us Simson-Bowles grand bargain. Ironically, it was the Tea Party nutjobs that prevented it. He also did other things like put up Garland who was over 60 and wouldn't have withdrawn him despite his age and the likelihood Garland would have done little for Citizens United.

Tearing down the dirty Democrats, huh? And using revisionist history & speculation to do it, obviously.

 

[fskimospy]

Barry Soetoro "hope and change" never came. He was a corporate Dem. He almost gave us Simson-Bowles grand bargain. Ironically, it was the Tea Party nutjobs that prevented it.

What specific policies of his make you think he was a 'corporate Dem' and what would you have done differently?

It's odd to see liberals call the president who did more to raise taxes on the rich than anyone in a very long time and criticize them for being some corporate sellout.

He also did other things like put up Garland who was over 60 and wouldn't have withdrawn him despite his age and the likelihood Garland would have done little for Citizens United.

That was an attempt to get someone seated before the election so he picked a moderate candidate that could possibly have pressured the Senate into taking up the nomination.

Considering what happened that looks like an awfully smart move. Who should he have nominated instead?

 

[pauldun170]

I would have a hard time naming a single person appointed by Obama

http://cabinet-members.insidegov.com/d/a/Barack-Obama
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/44th_president/new_team
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/11/politics/obama-cabinet/

 

[Atreus21]

Eh, if someone wants to pay you 400 grand to do a speech you'd be foolish not to take it.

 

[fskimospy]

Warren was correct. I would have a hard time naming a single person appointed by Obama who wasn't ivy-league educated or at least coastal-based (with the rare exception of an agriculture secretary). Obama was isolated in an ivory tower. He virtually ignored the midwest and great plains states entirely. Guess where Trump had big gains.

Trump gains over Romney were biggest in these states: North Dakota, Iowa, West Virginia, South Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Montana, Indiana, Wyoming, Missouri, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Virtually all of those are in the center of the US where Obama rarely visited, rarely talked about (other than the auto industry which was actually bailed out by Bush even though republicans hated it and democrats loved it), rarely listened to, and rarely appointed anyone for anything.

If you only focus on ivy-league advisors, you aren't listening to the bulk of the US.

I mean sort of, as of 2014 54% of the US population lived on or very near the coast: (yes, I realize not all those areas are coastal but most of the non-coastal areas are not heavily populated)

As far as what you consider Obama to have 'rarely visited', what's the basis for this? You can see a list of all the presidential trips he took here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Barack_Obama

Most of those states show up quite often (not all though. Eat it, South Dakota!). This sounds like folk wisdom that might not be backed up by actual data.

 

[theeedude]

Flyover country is on the outs, and they are lashing out. But it won't help them, since their injuries are self inflicted.

 

[Ken g6]

Warren was correct. I would have a hard time naming a single person appointed by Obama who wasn't ivy-league educated or at least coastal-based (with the rare exception of an agriculture secretary). Obama was isolated in an ivory tower. He virtually ignored the midwest and great plains states entirely. Guess where Trump had big gains.

Trump gains over Romney were biggest in these states: North Dakota, Iowa, West Virginia, South Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Montana, Indiana, Wyoming, Missouri, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Virtually all of those are in the center of the US where Obama rarely visited, rarely talked about (other than the auto industry which was actually bailed out by Bush even though republicans hated it and democrats loved it), rarely listened to, and rarely appointed anyone for anything.

If you only focus on ivy-league advisors, you aren't listening to the bulk of the US.

I tend to think that the bulk of the US is stupid, and those ivy-league advisors knew what's best. But I'm sure that's not a popular opinion.

 

[dullard]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/44th_president/new_team

About a third of the population lives in the midwest + great plains and only a small fraction of the population attends the Ivy League (or similar pristigious schools). How well is that mirrored in that team? Hint: it isn't close to a third of the team nor is it a small percent of Ivy League. His team just didn't reflect the voters. It doesn't have to reflect the voters, but as a voter from the great plains, it does feel like I was being snubbed over and over again.

Midwest:
Vilsack: Midwest (but like I said, he was agriculture so that is almost a given)
Salazar: Midwest (Colorado)
LaHood: Midwest (Illinois)
Sebelius: Midwest (Ohio)
Emanuel: Midwest (Chicago)

Coastal and/or Ivy League and similar Pristgious Schools
Holder: Coastal and Ivy League
Locke: Coastal and Ivy League
Gates: Midwest, and while not technically Ivy League, a PhD from Georgetown is right up there
Duncan: Midwest and Ivy League
Chu: Coastal, and while not technically Ivy League, a PhD from Berkeley is right up there
Napolitano: Partly coastal, partly south
Donovan: Coastal and Ivy League
Solis: Coastal
Clinton: Lived everywhere, Ivy League
Geithner: Coastal/international, Ivy League
Shinseki: Coastal
Schiliro: Coastal
Panetta: Coastal
Summers: Coastal and Ivy League
Blair: Coastal, and while not technically Ivy League, a masers from Oxford is right up there
Jackson: Coastal and Ivy League
Jones: Midwest, and while not technically Ivy League, a degree from Georgetown is right up there
Orszag: Coastal and Ivy League
Rice: Coastal and Ivy League
Browner: Coastal

South:
Kirk: South, not Ivy League
Gibbs: South/Coastal, not Ivy League

 

[soulcougher73]

Does she even understand "the lived experience of most Americans"? lol

 

[dullard]

I mean sort of, as of 2014 54% of the US population lived on or very near the coast: (yes, I realize not all those areas are coastal but most of the non-coastal areas are not heavily populated)

Compare that to this:
http://www.cnbc.com/heres-a-map-of-the-us-counties-that-flipped-to-trump-from-democrats/

See the red blob in the midwest/rust belt states? Major swing to Trump. And there were enough electoral college voters in those states that swung to give him the win.

As far as what you consider Obama to have 'rarely visited', what's the basis for this?...This sounds like folk wisdom that might not be backed up by actual data.

Yes, folk wisdom. Living in the midwest and waiting years for a token visit does not make us feel like he cared.

 

[Jaskalas]

Does she even understand "the lived experience of most Americans"? lol

That phrase is itself an illustrator to help "attack" the party line of defending the economy these past 8 years.
It's not, at the moment, falling off the rails but it is far from healthy and there's much work to do to help Americans.
Criticisms precede Changes. Problems before Solutions.

Has she lived the experience? Maybe not today, but yes she has in the past.
And her desire to call out today's problem is important as it means her heart is in the right place and she wants to do the right thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Compare that to this:
http://www.cnbc.com/heres-a-map-of-the-us-counties-that-flipped-to-trump-from-democrats/

See the red blob in the midwest/rust belt states? Major swing to Trump. And there were enough electoral college voters in those states that swung to give him the win.

From my count that's only true if you count Illinois, which he lost.

Yes, folk wisdom. Living in the midwest and waiting years for a token visit does not make us feel like he cared.

Yes but what is that based on other than some gut feeling? Are you saying he visited those states disproportionately infrequently? That could be true, but I'm not aware of any actual data that backs that up. I find that people are perfectly willing to invent reasons to justify their choices. I'm willing to accept the argument that Obama neglected those states in travel (although in policy he did not), but I'd like to see some reason to think that's the case.

 

[zinfamous]

Was wondering when the Democratic infighting would start. While having Trump as a common enemy might keep a lid on things for a while you know that it wouldn't ultimately resolve the struggle for the soul of the party. Interesting this is coming now and I wonder if Warren is beginning to posture herself for a POTUS run in 2020 or 2024. There's quite a few folks here who certainly are lusting after her brand of "stick it to the rich guys" and hoping for some of that sweet, sweet economic redistribution moolah.

OK, so if your mantra is "stick it to the rich and redistribute" is the liberal agenda, and that is pure evil...how is that somehow worse than the Trump/Reagan "steal 90% of the nation's wealth, give it to 0.002% of people, and watch society implode."

Maybe you should compare what this Reagan and after republican policy has done to the nation with what democratic policies have done. I mean, there is actual data to look at. You don't have to make shit up and pretend it is all theory, just need more testing!....(unless of course you need to support an argument that is simply untrue. ....oh).

 

[First]

lol @ OP. Did anyone read the link? Warren didn't actually say that about Obama (and she'd be wrong if she did).

 

[pauldun170]

About a third of the population lives in the midwest + great plains and only a small fraction of the population attends the Ivy League (or similar pristigious schools). How well is that mirrored in that team? Hint: it isn't close to a third of the team nor is it a small percent of Ivy League. His team just didn't reflect the voters. It doesn't have to reflect the voters, but as a voter from the great plains, it does feel like I was being snubbed over and over again.

Midwest:
Vilsack: Midwest (but like I said, he was agriculture so that is almost a given)
Salazar: Midwest (Colorado)
LaHood: Midwest (Illinois)
Sebelius: Midwest (Ohio)
Emanuel: Midwest (Chicago)

Coastal and/or Ivy League and similar Pristgious Schools
Holder: Coastal and Ivy League
Locke: Coastal and Ivy League
Gates: Midwest, and while not technically Ivy League, a PhD from Georgetown is right up there
Duncan: Midwest and Ivy League
Chu: Coastal, and while not technically Ivy League, a PhD from Berkeley is right up there
Napolitano: Partly coastal, partly south
Donovan: Coastal and Ivy League
Solis: Coastal
Clinton: Lived everywhere, Ivy League
Geithner: Coastal/international, Ivy League
Shinseki: Coastal
Schiliro: Coastal
Panetta: Coastal
Summers: Coastal and Ivy League
Blair: Coastal, and while not technically Ivy League, a masers from Oxford is right up there
Jackson: Coastal and Ivy League
Jones: Midwest, and while not technically Ivy League, a degree from Georgetown is right up there
Orszag: Coastal and Ivy League
Rice: Coastal and Ivy League
Browner: Coastal

South:
Kirk: South, not Ivy League
Gibbs: South/Coastal, not Ivy League

Are you objecting to to the selection of officials in the executive branch based on the quality\quantity of their education and their place of residence?

Are you proposing an affirmative action type requirement for the Executive branch where
1. Community college or state schools only
2. Must come from sparsely populated areas

 

[Jaskalas]

lol @ OP. Did anyone read the link? Warren didn't actually say that about Obama (and she'd be wrong if she did).

Did you?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/01/elizabeth-warren-barack-obama-democrats-economy
Elizabeth Warren calls out Obama and Democrats for losing way on economy

“I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talk about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” she told the Guardian. “That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans.​