I was at the Burner keynote that Anne Laurie posted, which was followed by Mazie Hirono and Elizabeth Warren. Now, don’t get me wrong — I think it’s fine for a politician to stand up in front of a gathering of core supporters and ask for big things, and I’m not going to fault Burner for that. And women have been enduring a retrograde assault on what should be settled rights over the last couple of years, and maybe the ERA needs to be revived. All that said, by the time that keynote was done, it was clear to me why Darcy Burner can’t win an election, and it was clear the minute that Elizabeth Warren stood up to talk.
When Warren got to the podium, her voice was so hoarse that she could barely speak, but by the time she got through a few sentences, she had no problems connecting with the audience. Warren gave an old-fashioned stump speech, and it dealt with the themes that Warren has been interested in her whole life, themes that are absolutely essential for Democrats to bang home for the next few months if we’re going to win this election. First, she mentioned the name of the President (he won in 2008 and it wasn’t an entirely bad thing), and a piece of legislation (Dodd/Frank), and instead of bemoaning what was wrong with Obama or Dodd/Frank, she treated it as the first step to further accomplishments. What a refreshing break from the dirge-like tone of some of the proceedings of that conference. Yes, we got the shit kicked out of us in 2010. Yes, Dodd/Frank, HCR and all the rest of the legislation that was passed could have been a hell of a lot better. But unless you see those bills as a step in the right direction, and the positive result of 2008, why in the hell would you bother to vote in 2012? After seeing Darcy Burner talk about how a smartphone app rating consumer products is one way that we can get power, it was a relief to see someone actually talk about some real power that was exercised in the political process.
The next part of her speech was a short, concise explanation of markets, making the simple point that markets without rules are not markets. Her analysis of power was blunt: the Republican view is that markets are where “the most powerful come to hammer on the least powerful”. We need to push back against the airy, wholly theoretical Randian market fetishism of the right, and Warren shows how it’s done.
You can watch the speech and call out the highlights, but the net of the whole thing is that Warren talked about real issues that are excruciatingly relevant to the election a few months away, she did so in plain language, and she connected the Democrats’ progress in the past to a future of more progress. Good politics looks simple when someone with real talent does it, and Warren is an exceptionally gifted politician.
For example, pay close attention to Warren’s body language if you do watch the speech. She’s open and inviting to her audience. When she gestures to make a point, she never points her finger at us. Darcy Burner’s most-used gesture during the Q&A was a pointed finger because she was lecturing us how it should be. Darcy Burner says “You Must” when Elizabeth Warren says “We Can”.
Finally, Warren’s voice is hoarse because she was at parties talking to actual human beings. Hell, my voice is still hoarse from the conference, and I’m a goddam misanthrope. Warren could have helicoptered in and out of Netroots and nobody would have been the wiser. Instead, she did what good politicians do: she talked to supporters to energize them to get out and work for her. Burner’s voice is crystal-clear, as it will be next year when she attends Netroots to lecture that group about her next sure-to-fail run for office.
amk
Ouch.
Patricia Kayden
Poor Ms. Burner. Why the hate? So what if she lacks presentation skills. She’ll learn. Was the substance of her presentation anti-Progressive?
Ms. Warren is a pro, so I think it’s unfair to compare her to Ms. Burner.
Tiny Tim
I wasn’t there and have not watched Burner’s speech, so criticisms of it might be perfectly valid, but in past NN events Burner certainly spent a lot of time mingling with the masses.
Linda Featheringill
@Patricia Kayden:
Ms. Burner is trying to be a pro. I did have to look her up in Google to see who she is. Why does she look like a college Junior?
Warren is a doll, isn’t she? Practically perfect in every way.
mistermix
@Patricia Kayden:
I hope you’re trolling, because Darcy Burner started running for Congress in 2006 and Elizabeth Warren’s experience started with the Obama Administration. If Burner hasn’t learned by now, she’s never gonna get it.
Raven
@Patricia Kayden: So you book her to be the keynote? jesus
Warren Terra
@Patricia Kayden:
This is her third run for Congress. When should we expect it will be that “she’ll learn”? Burner has been running for office longer than Warren has, and so far as I now running for Congress has been her full-time job for the last five or so years. Doesn’t that make her a “pro”?
gnomedad
The phrase “objectively pro-mugging” would be an excellent category.
Warren Terra
@gnomedad:
Spoken like a true Big-Referee Liberal.
Linda Featheringill
ERA:
We should pass the ERA. We should be able to live in a world that reflects the spirit of the ERA. Alas, we do not.
I’m in favor of working for the ERA letter and the spirit but life is short and we must live today.
May I suggest adopting what the Army ads used to call “being all you can be” and what Maslow called “self actualization.” Marx, in his treatment of alienation talked about self fulfillment. We aging hippies used to talk about finding your “thang” and doing it.
Humans are temporary critters. We can work for the ERA but we can’t afford to wait for it. We just don’t have the time.
Odie Hugh Manatee
I would say that is a fair analysis mixtermix, Warren is very engaging and her communications skills help to make her so. As the old saying goes, when you point your finger at someone, three other fingers are pointing back at yourself. The key is to draw them in, not drive them away. Burner and Warren were speaking to a crowd that favored listening to them. When talking in unfriendly territory, I’d bet that Warren would be found to be the better communicator than Burner.
As good as Burner is on issues, IMO she leaves much to be desired in her communication skills. I enjoy listening to her but then again, I’m the type who would vote for her anyway.
She needs to convince the ones who don’t want to vote for her if she is ever going to win.
gnomedad
@Warren Terra:
The only good referee is a bought referee, amirite?
Odie Hugh Manatee
I’m posting this a second time because it took my original post, ate it and now states that I have already posted this even though the page has not loaded it yet.
FYWP!
Once again, what I said…
I would say that is a fair analysis mixtermix, Warren is very engaging and her communications skills help to make her so. As the old saying goes, when you point your finger at someone, three other fingers are pointing back at yourself. The key is to draw them in, not drive them away. Burner and Warren were speaking to a crowd that favored listening to them. When talking in unfriendly territory, I’d bet that Warren would be found to be the better communicator than Burner.
As good as Burner is on issues, IMO she leaves much to be desired in her communication skills. I enjoy listening to her but then again, I’m the type who would vote for her anyway.
She needs to convince the ones who don’t want to vote for her if she is ever going to win.
Odie Hugh Manatee
WP keeps eating comments and telling me that it has already posted them.
Fuck WP sucks! I’m not going to try to post the same thing again, read my mind since that’s what WP does.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
I have always said that while many politicians benefit from the 10,000 Hour Rule, many don’t and Burner’s one of them. Is she a great progressive candidate? Absolutely. Is she a great campaigner? Not when you put her next to someone who was born with that talent, ie., Warren.
YouTube is chock full of Warren clips and you see immediately that this woman has unmitigated talent at this. You want Democratic rock star with charisma, look no further than the good doctor.
I like Burner but she strikes me as if she were, well, me up there. That being said, she’s one Congressional candidate, nobody’s asking her to be some national standard bearer for the party.
And thanks for the report from NN.
mistermix
@Odie Hugh Manatee: I got your comments back. I have no clue why they got marked as canned meat, but they did.
Patricia Kayden
Anne Laurie seemed to like Ms. Burner’s presentation, as did I.
gene108
What gets left out in the Left’s disappointment with HCR is the fact the point person in the Senate, Ted Kennedy, was out of action with brain cancer.
2009 was “supposed” to be a string of Democratic accomplishments before the summer recess, with HCR being the cherry on top. Unfortunately Kennedy wasn’t available to do squat, so it fell to Max Baucus to fill Kennedy’s shoes and he dithered.
And as Baucus dithered the right-wingers set about launching a well planned, well funded and well orchestrated blitzkrieg of anger at Democrats during the August recess that grabbed all the headlines and sucked the oxygen out of the room.
I really do wonder what the 2010 mid-terms or even the August 2009 recess would’ve been like, if Ted Kennedy was able to push through HCR in the Senate in the spring/summer of 2009 and it didn’t have to fall to Baucus and Dodd to take charge of the Senate version of the bill.
Napoleon
@gnomedad:
I have long been surprised that most Democrats do not make this point in this way.
Mino
Interesting that have such high standards for talent in a Dem candidate who’s critical of the status quo. Have you seen the House members? Burner would be a BIS candidate in that group of mutts.
kc
What a bunch of assholes.
ornery_curmudgeon
I don’t think you’re right, mrmix. Our politics has room for BOTH progressive candidates, actually.
Have you investigated the ideas behind liberalism? I don’t think you would like it, as it’s quite different than you seem to believe. One aspect is that it starts with inclusion and different styles being not just okay, but a strength.
gnomedad
@Napoleon:
David Brin likes to emphasize that markets are a human invention. The right seems to think of markets as a magical state of nature that can only be sullied by regulations.
BTD
Saw neither speech but find it hilarious that Mix touts Warren as THE ONE given the bumbling performance of her campaign and the candidate herself on the Native American heritage issue.
In fact, Burner had a similar moment in her previous campaign on so called resume exaggeration.
I find any analysis that claims someone has “it” (or does not have it) from one speech pretty ridiculous. See Clinton, Bill – 1988 DNC speech.
In short, this is a ridiculous post.
mistermix
@ornery_curmudgeon: I’m fine with any progressive style that wins elections. Burner loses in borderline blue districts (I believe her last was D+3 in 2008, which was a great year for progressives). Maybe she’s a good spokesperson at places like NRN, but she’s not a good candidate. That’s my only point here – that she gets keynotes, money and love despite her actual record.
Odie Hugh Manatee
I’m glad that progressives think that Darcy is all she is. Now if both you and her can convince the people who aren’t voting for her…
Good luck with that. It seems that many on the left like to preach to, or listen to, the choir.
Keep singing, maybe some others who aren’t progressive will join you.
BTD
@mistermix:
True enough, Burner lost a winnable race in 2008 largely because of a fairly Warrenesque performance on a last minute attack aided and abetted by the pro Reichert Seattle Times.
She did not lose because of her stump speech however.
You analysis strikes me as bizarre at best.
Let’s put it this way, Massachusetts is certainly much more favorable territory for Warren than Burner’s district was before and is now.
Warren should win her race imo and Burner winning will be an upset.
I assume your prediction is precisely that.
How much of your prediction’s accuracy will be a result of stump speeches is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. But it is somewhat risible to present Warren as the perfect candidate.
mistermix
@BTD: Yeah that would be stupid if it’s what I said. My view of Warren is shaped by much more than one speech (because like everyone else paying attention, I’ve seen her multiple times), and I certainly don’t think she’s “the one”, but she’s got talent.
I’ll agree that her campaign screwed up the Native American thing, btw.
andrewsomething
I’ve never heard her speak, but she certainly wouldn’t be the first un-charismatic (if that’s even the case) member in the House. I’m often shocked how stiff and boring some of these pasty old white dudes are when some random backbencher gets themselves into the news.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@BTD:
Coming from the expert in ridiculous posts…lol! If you were a vacuum cleaner, I’d buy you for cleaning out the cat box. Armando, you flat out suck. Always have, always will. You didn’t even see either speech and yet you had to post your disagreement with mistermix? LOfuckingL!
You purity progressives keep digging for that pony!
BTD
@mistermix:
It was what you said in terms of Burner.
Culture of Truth
I’m glad Warren is doing better, but the Democrat had better win in freaking Massachusetts.
BTD
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Thanks for the substantive response.
mistermix
@BTD: Winning a D+3 is not an “upset”, it’s a reasonable expectation. Cook has it as “leans Democratic”.
BTD
@mistermix:
From your post – “All that said, by the time that keynote was done, it was clear to me why Darcy Burner can’t win an election, and it was clear the minute that Elizabeth Warren stood up to talk.”
You seem to be judging Burner solely on the speech without considering anything else.
cmorenc
@ornery_curmudgeon:
It’s astounding how badly, completely, you miss the crucially important point mistermix was making, which wasn’t about the substance or merits of liberal ideas, or “inclusiveness, but rather about who and what is effective in communicating them to folks outside the choir of already-convinced progressives. The progressive tent may indeed be broad enough to be inclusive of diverse “styles”, but some of them are far more effective than others at reaching the not-yet-convinced and winning elections, as opposed to preaching wonderful sermons to the choir.
BTD
@mistermix:
She’s not in a D+3 this year I do not believe. But maybe you are correct. I hope so for her sake.
BTW, I don’t disagree with your view that Burner should improve, indeed, must improve her political rhetoric if she wants to be a successful candidate, it just seems to me that your post went well beyond that in a fashion that strikes me as well, ridiculous.
Maybe she’s not cut out for it, but I think your condemnation over the top.
As well as your praise for Warren’s POLITICAL skills. Frankly, the performance so far as candidate has been underwhelming at best imo.
I’m somewhat worried that her political team is not up to the job.
mistermix
@BTD:
So I guess I need to do your googling for you:
http://cookpolitical.com/charts/house/competitive.php
WA-1, D+3.
I’ve been following Darcy’s career since 2006, btw. My impression of her is based on a lot more than one speech. She has a track record of losing elections. Warren has an early campaign bobble. Equating the two is silly.
cmorenc
@BTD:
No, he’s judging Burner on the combined facts of:
SPEECH + TRACK RECORD OF LOSING ELECTIONS
Granted, the political terrain of each congressional district or senate seat is different, some being tougher territory for a progressive candidate than others. Nevertheless, I once had the opportunity back in the 1992 Presidential campaign to briefly meet both Bill Clinton and Al Gore at a campaign event, and the difference in effective communication skills between the two of them was astoundingly obvious, even though Gore was far better on progressive substance in many respects. I completely get what mistermix was getting at in evaluating the effectiveness of Darcy Burner’s and Elizabeth Warren’s respective communication skills back to back from their presentations.
Warren Terra
BTD,
You seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that this discussion is a condemnation of Ms. Burner. It’s not, really; it’s a condemnation of the Netroots. After six years or so, the Netroots remains trapped in a passionate embrace of Ms. Burner in blind defiance of the fact that she seems unable to motivate anyone outside the Netroots. I’m sure she’s an entirely worthy person, full of good ideas, and I’m sure everyone here wishes her the best; she’s also a proven underperformer as a general-election candidate who nonetheless continues to capture a huge share of the attention and support of the Netroots and – prior even to the primary election that might make her a nominee for the fall – she snagged a keynote spot at Netroots Nation. It is not a sign of a healthy political movement that it should reserve its grandest displays of enthusiasm for the celebration of an underperformer, instead of for successful leaders, rising stars, or people it is hoped will become rising stars.
BTD
@cmorenc:
That’s not my point. I certainly can accept the idea that Warren is more naturally gifted at political rhetoric than Burner.
The condemnation to losing and seeing her make the same speech at NN13 seemed over the top to me, especially given the fact that Warren is in a coin flip race.
If she loses, did she lose her natural gifts?
There is much more to politics than that.
BTD
@Warren Terra:
I’m pretty sure it is a condemnation of Burner too.
But in terms of whose votes Burner has received, she lost pretty close elections, so clearly SOMEONE voted for her besides the “Netroots” whatever that means.
But I’m curious to read Mix’s response to your assertion that he is condemning the “Netroots” for supporting Burner. IS he also condemning the Netroots for pushing Warren into the Mass Senate race?
Or are you folks unfamiliar with the fact that Warren’s support for the Senate run started with the “Netroots?”
If that was Mix’s point, then it is even more bizarre imo.
Rusty
I worked for Darcy Burner’s campaign during her first run for Congress in 2006. My summary: she’s a good and committed progressive, she’s not a closer when it comes to elections. She doesn’t have that common touch that politicians need – even as fake as it sometimes is.
BTD
@mistermix:
That’s good news. So, who is your choice for the Dem primary in that district Mix? If not Burner, then who?
And MA-Sen is D+ what?
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@BTD: Losing by six points in a district where your presidential candidate wins by 15 isn’t particularly close.
mistermix
@BTD: Let’s not forget that I didn’t just talk about their political gifts, I mentioned the content of their speeches. Warren’s was a red-meat, take it to the Republicans, well-framed look at the #1 election issue, the economy. Burner’s was a Powerpoint presentation on a whole bunch of stuff that we might agree upon in theory but is pretty irrelevant to the ’12 campaign, the one she’s running in.
And this also goes to your contention that Warren’s campaign is incompetent. Her stump speech is quite good, which indicates that something’s right in her campaign.
@Warren Terra: Yes, my issue is why Burner is still getting attention and money, not Burner herself, who I’m sure would be fine in some other role.
Warren Terra
@BTD:
As you know perfectly well, a generic adult can often expect to poll within 10% in the general election if it has the nomination of either major party. Running 20% behind the top of the ticket doesn’t really demonstrate an ability to reach out beyond her fervent base; at best, it suggests that she doesn’t actively drive away the 40-45% of her district that’s pretty faithfully Democratic.
And I’m not trying to start some feud, me versus the Netroots. Heck, I consider myself part of the Netroots, though less committed to some of its enthusiasms than are some others. I’m glad the Netroots supported Burner in 2006 and even perhaps in 2008; supporting energetic people who are outspoken and are on the relative left of what’s possible for their district should be what we do. But to continue not merely backing her but indeed celebrating her six years later, when she has a solid record of electoral failure and so far as I can tell has done nothing to buff up her resume or to improve as a politician over that time, to make of her an icon and a hero, to give her a keynote speaking slot – none of that makes sense to me. It seems to me to be the hallmark of a movement that has lost its way.
BTD
@mistermix:
“Yes, my issue is why Burner is still getting attention and money, not Burner herself, who I’m sure would be fine in some other role.”
I asked somewhere else, who is your candidate for WA-1? Burner is running. Is there someone else you have in mind who merits support?
mistermix
@BTD:
That question demonstrates your ignorance of the primary process. Why would an up-and-coming great progressive candidate run in a primary where Darcy’s sucking up all the Netroots cash and attention?
Why is this relevant? Warren didn’t lose that seat twice. Also, too: Google it yourself instead of wasting our time with your dumb questions.
@BTD:
You mean you asked like two comments up in this thread? You need a little keyboard Kaopectate.
BTD
@Warren Terra:
Make her an icon or a hero? She’s a candidate for office. She pays attention to the Netroots thus they pay attention to her.
I’m not at all following this critique. This reminds me of the folks who were gung ho for Travis Childers even though he basically was a conservative Republican. Cuz he could win in a tough district.
I dunno, sounds like you and Mix want the Netroots to act as adjuncts of the DCCC or something.
I certainly do not speak for anyone in the Netroots, but my notion of the exercise is that no pols are “heroes” or “icons.”
If pols fight for what you believe in, then you support them, if they don’t, then you don’t.
But I get back to the question, at least as to WA-1, if not Burner, then who?
Or should the Netroots ignore WA-1 according to you and Mix?
Warren Terra
@BTD:
This seems to presuppose the notion that some candidate from WA-1 must be deserving of wild displays of love, attention, and money from the Netroots. As if taking that keynote speaking slot away from Ms. Burner would have meant giving it to someone else running for the nomination in WA-1. This seems to me to be a questionable notion.
It may be that Ms. Burner is the best candidate running in the district, based on policy positions and even based on political talents. And six years ago the enthusiasm for Ms. Burner was entirely understandable; I participated in it, and gave her money (and I get as many funding request emails from her as I do from the combined next three Congressional candidates whose campaigns I previously backed). But six years later is she really still one of the top progressive hopefuls in the country right now? Is she an iconic figure or a rising star? Even if she is the best in the district, is she really where the Netroots in the rest of the country want to be focusing our efforts and attention?
M Riles
@BTD: Suzan Del Bene who almost won in 2010 despite the awful climate.
BTD
@mistermix:
Heh. How does that demonstrate my ignorance? It demonstrates that Burner did the POLITICAL work of garnering key support. you know who esle did that right? Why Warren of course.
So in essence, you have no alternative to Burner in WA-1 but don’t like that fact.
As for why MA is favorable ground for Dems, it seems to me to be pertinent to your argument as to who is good or bad at politics.
Warren, you argue, has demonstrated her chops. The polls do not demonstrate her doing much better than say, Coakley, right now. OF course Coakley won a lot of MA races before losing the last one.
So if Warren loses a a squeaker, will that mean she sucks?
There is something reductive about your argument.
gene108
@gnomedad:
No. The Right wants Markets to be a place, where the powerful can dominate everyone else. The fact this isn’t the most efficient method for markets to work in is besides the point.
BTD
@Warren Terra:
The Keynote speaking engagement at NN is that big a prize? I never thought so. But maybe I’m mistaken.
In fact, I think you inadvertently make a better argument for why Burner should not have gotten the gig (I’m assuming that’s what the debate is about now). She is already well known in the Netroots, should have taken the opportunity to promote a different candidate who fights for what the Netroots believes in.
That’s fine by me.
I’m questioning as over the top Mix’s condemnation of Burner to the ash heap of history in June. That’s all.
BTD
@mistermix:
Also, pretty touchy for a guy who just took a hit on Burner.
Thicker skin Mix.
Keith G
A serious attempt at ERA is at least half a generation away.
And if it were to come about successfully, it would need to be very grassroots in its state by state advance. I do not see
many current political leaders who would be willing to forcefully support it until it can be perceived as totally organic.
burnspbesq
@ornery_curmudgeon:
That’s fine, but it doesn’t change the single most important fact about Darcy Burner.
She loses elections.
mistermix
@BTD:
Being a keynote speaker at NRN as a Congressional candidate gets you exposed to thousands of people who will contribute and fund your endless campaign. No other candidate who had run multiple times and never won was offered a keynote spot. For some reason, Burner is getting that level of support long after she’s lost multiple times. This crowds out other possible progressive candidates.
Seems obvious to me, but it’s been pointed out to you over and over yet you just ignore it.
BTW, speaking of polls, it’s Darcy at 39%, her Republican opponent at 48% in the latest SUSA poll.
CaseyL
Burner ran twice, and lost twice. When she announced that she was running again, I decided she was a liberal, female Alf Landon, incapable of winning, and running only for reasons of ego. (And, possibly, money – since, as has been pointed out, “running for office” has been her job for the past 5 years.)
She is making it impossible for someone who can win to run in that district, which means it will stay in the GOP column.
Emoprogs like BTD may love Darcy, but she’s not doing the actual liberal cause any favors.
ETA: IIRC, she lost by larger margins the second time. Meaning, that the better voters know her, the less they like her. Yeah, that’s a big plus for the liberal cause!
Rusty
@mistermix: BTW, speaking of polls, it’s Darcy at 39%, her Republican opponent at 48% in the latest SUSA poll.
Seriously, I really think her forte is working with higher ups and peers, as she did at Microsoft. I watched her in 2006 campaign inter-relate with Cantwell and Gregoire, where she seemed to really do well. I was surprised that the Obama administration didn’t tap her for some role. I think she has more difficulty connecting down, as any candidate needs to do to attract voters.
This is just one man’s opinion, not backed up with any specific evidence other than what my eyes saw volunteering for her in 2006, and then watching her in 2008.
Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor
@Culture of Truth:
The local media seems to have it out for her, for whatever reason. I’ve never seen it this bad. (Note that Scott Brown’s wife is a local tv news anchor, and they all know each other professionally– I suspect that’s a big part of it).
IMO she needs to start those debates with the Senator from Fidelity sooner than September. And those debates need to get on TV where ‘normal’ people might actually get to see them.
jayackroyd
@mistermix
“We need to push back against the airy, wholly theoretical Randian market fetishism of the right,”
It’s more basic than that. Liberals believe in free markets, in theory and in practice. Government plays an absolutely critical role in creating and preserving market competition. In the absence of a government practicing oversight (weights and measures, truth in advertising) and intervening to prevent the formation of monopolies in product and labor markets (much of the Wealth of Nations a treatise on how monopolies WILL thwart the invisible hand).
Randites believe in allowing monopolies to form–in fact, that the government should never get in the way of the accumulation of wealth and power by private interests. That’s not a market goal–that’s an oligarchical goal.
BTW, there is nothing “market” based in, say, running an intercontinental railroad. That sort of business requires massive government intervention on behalf of the enterprise’s management, both to even start the business (rights of way, eminent domain etc) and to preserve the monopoly on shipping options (as, you know, actually happened in railway pricing in the monopolies that arose in the unregulated and thus NOT free market private sector).
goblue72
The right wing is cheering Burner on. She’s playing the same role some Tea Party candidates in swing districts did in 2010, like the Im not a witch candidate in Delaware. She’s an extremist nut that can pull off a primary win in a field crowded with mainstream candidates by appealing to the hardcore in the base who turn out in higher numbers for primaries.
And then march inevitably to getting creamed in what should have been a competitive race otherwise in the general.
MM
Some people have the political touch and some people don’t.
I’ve seen Elizabeth Warren twice at Netroots Nation and she gives a great stemwinder speech and would be a major asset to the nation in the Senate. Bill Clinton gives a great speech. I saw Al Gore give a speech while he was vice president and he was stiff. He was stiff on TV during the campaign. I’ve seen him speak at Netroots and in NYC and he was fantastic. Alan Grayson and Howard Dean can connect with an audience.
Darcy Burner knows her stuff. She’d be a major asset to the nation in the House. I saw her every day out among the masses at Netroots this year.
She’s a remarkably socialized geek. I’m a geek myself and I’m challenged. If you meet a candidate who can connect with voters, she will ask you a question and you will feel that she really cares about your answer. I was standing next to her in a crowd and made a small comment. Her answer was exactly the same as what I would have answered. It was a logical short answer that didn’t leave any room to continue the conversation. It wasn’t nasty. It was just geeklike.
Don’t get me wrong. I love Darcy Burner. I send her campaign contributions. I’d love to see her in the House.
And she has been working very hard in the off years with ProgressiveCongress.org which works with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Mitt on the other hand has been unemployed for a long time.
Mnemosyne
@BTD:
As people keep pointing out, Burner is a two-time losing candidate. Where is your evidence that the third time is going to be the charm and Burner is finally going to manage to win?
Ash Can
If Darcy Burner can’t win her district — and it’s been made painfully obvious that she can’t — then she’s doing nobody any good by persisting in running for that office. She needs to step aside and let someone who can win that district take the wheel.
Lihtox
@Warren Terra: You think people stop learning after doing something for four or even forty years?
comrade scott's agenda of rage
Her district has been redistricted into something more accessible to Dems. She ran in the old 8th District against an incumbent. Now she’s running in the new 1st district for an open seat. The gerrymanderying process has been her friend.
I don’t use that as a pejorative statement either. Elections at the state level have consequences as Dems nationwide seem to forget. You win state houses, you get to gerrymander in most cases. Your ability to gerrymander means you can promote Dems to a national level platform.
Beeb
I was at that keynote. I think the biggest problem with Darcy’s speech was that she used the large screens in the room for Power Point slides instead of for showing her giving it. That’s a huge room, and unless you are sitting right down front, you can’t really see the speaker. Everyone who isn’t sitting right down front watches the screens instead of the tiny figure at the podium.
You can’t get a whole lot, positive or negative, from body language you can’t really see.
I gave Darcy a little money the last two times she ran. I haven’t given her any this cycle, in spite of all the emails. This was an opportunity for her to convince me to donate again, and she didn’t do it. Not saying she still can’t, but she just didn’t.
I’ve already donated to Liz, so she didn’t need to convince me. But she made me determined to continue to donate. Not a lot because I can’t afford a lot, but I will continue to give her what I can. And that, right there, is at least part of the difference between Liz and Darcy that mistermix is talking about.
BTW, this was my first chance to see Mazie Hirono, the middle speaker. FWIW, I liked her a lot. If part of the reason for a candidate’s showing up and speaking at NN is to get herself on a whole bunch of small donors’ priority lists, she probably succeeded. At least, she is now on mine, and she wasn’t before.
Just offering my own perspective here. I have no strong opinion on whether Darcy should have been offered one of the available slots, in part because I have no idea whether they tried to get other progressive women candidates to come and were turned down, but mostly because I kind of like Darcy. I want her to do well. I sure hope she can. But IMHO she should leave the Power Point at home. Or at least learn to use it for something that illustrates her argument rather than just using it to summarize what she’s saying.
Warren Terra
@Lihtox:
Well, no. But if she continues learning for forty years while tying up the attention and support of the Netroots, and keeps on winning primaries and losing general elections, it will be an awfully expensive long-term education – expensive for all of us.
El Cid
My reaction in such cases (granting the post’s view) is to think it would be nice if such a person as Burner could receive help and perspective by such more experienced figures as Warren. (Running for office is by no means the limit of her public and political experience.)
Another reaction is to declare that Burner sucks and wait for someone else to arise and do the things I wisely think correct.
mistermix
@Beeb: Good point. Maybe you attended more keynotes than I did, but hers was the only powerpoint I saw at any keynote.
Yutsano
@mistermix: Ahh Powerpoint. Where potentially great speeches go to die.
samuel
Guess all the firebaggers were at this one fapping in the back eh since she is their latest Jesus? That is how I know she will never wing the Senate seat. Anyone and everyone the firebaggers wank over ends up losing.
She is dumb to embrace Nut Root. Shows her lack of political instincts. One thing Nut Root has shown over and over is it’s utter failure at turning support into votes.
HyperIon
@CaseyL: Thanks, CaseyL, for articulating my POV. I figured that someone in the comments would say it better than me.
Corner Stone
@El Cid:
Would one of those things be to deify Warren and say how valuable she would be as a Senator?
As this thread proves, you can do both. Vilify the demon Burner and deify Warren. IOW, we’ve got both kinds of music here, Country and Western.
dollared
@BTD: Suzan delBene will be at my house later this week, with my few upper middle class friends and their checkbooks.
Darcy Burner is a good person. She needs to go out and get a job. A Harvard degree does not entitle you to a seat in Congress. She tried, I admire her for her views and her effort, but it’s over.
Suzan delBene is a bona fide liberal, will be the preferred candidate of the Seattle Times, and will get shit done once she gets there. And when she’s a bit soft on the VCs in Seattle, I’ll be calling her staff and leaning on her. That’s what I care about.@mistermix:
David Koch
This is why I won’t vote for Elizabeth Warren!
She’s a Blue-Dog, conservadem, corporatist, centrist.
David Koch
from the prior thread:
Ouch
David Koch
@dollared:
Before you hand over any checks you should force delBene to publicly denounce Obama.
David Koch
@dollared:
I don’t know how that happens. First, she may be in the minority. Second, even if she’s in the majority, the place works on a seniority system. Third, even if she got shit done the moment she gets there, the bill can easily die in Senate, if it doesn’t get… wait for it…… 60 votes.
Ya know, for all his oratory gifts, Anthony Wiener and his bully pulpit didn’t get a single bill passed in 13 years of service. Same thing with Kucinich and he’s been there 16 years.
David Brooks (not that one)
I live in WA-01, and so do a few of the other commenters. And we are the ones who should know: we’re screwed.
Darcy Burner will suck up all the money and publicity oxygen, win the primary, and lose the district by 5. This new 1st is even more swingy than the old 8th, which she lost twice. She simply will get creamed in the northern tier. With the best will in the world, she carries too many negatives. Like others, I like her personally, and I agree with her positions. She’s just not a winning candidate.
And, with her antics in the rump seat for the old 1st, she has made enemies all over the state D establishment. Believe me, outside the progressive caucus there weren’t many kind words for her at the State convention.
In the primary, I’ll be voting for Nancy Pelosi. IOW, anyone who can push us one seat closer to the majority. And it ain’t Darcy Burner. You can make a case for DelBene, Ruderman, and (especially in the northern, more conservative part) Hobbs. Personally I think Hobbs is the most likely to win, but DelBene could win and is the most likely to knock the smile off Burner’s face in the primary. Actually primaries.
Anne Laurie
Thanks for posting Warren’s speech, MisterMix — seriously.
I wavered between putting up Burner’s speech and this one… or at least using Warren’s “Without rules and a ref, it isn’t football, it’s a mugging” quip. But I know some people have already dismissed any post with my name attached, since of course I’m a helpless Warren fangrrrl so who can be bothered to listen yadda yadda.
And, yeah, I have a sentimental attachment to the ERA, which was the Great Failed Progressive Dream of my particular political youth (Roe v. Wade having passed while I was in high school). I’m not the only woman with such an attachment, if another younger & much more widely followed BJ front-pager is to be believed. Comments on my earlier post were roughly divided between women who cheered the idea of finally passing the Equal Rights Amendment, and men-plus-some-women who thought it was a stupid sentifmental waste of time and diversion of crucial resources. Perhaps the common message is that even at Netroots Nation “we” have not yet reached the happy state where women’s caucuses can be eliminated since there are no longer any differences of viewpoints between the genders…
David Koch
Marisa DeFranco is the only Real Democrat™ who can beat Scott Brown
HW3
The real problem with Bruner’s current run, is that Washington is switching to a top two primary this year, and the Republican, John Koster, is a wingnut’s wingnut who’s already well funded for his run in a newly enlarged and more rural district.
The nearest Democratic opponent, Laura Ruderman, is polling behind both Bruner and Koster. The constituents of Washington’s 1st District are going to go from Jay Inslee to extreme nutcase in one election cycle if Bruner manages to lose another election to an even more conservative opponent.
fuckwit
I’m going to say it once, and say it loud:
Our first female President will not be Hillary Clinton.
Our first female President will be — and should be– Elizabeth Warren.
I’m early money on this– she hasn’t even won a Senate seat yet– but she is just exactly what this country needs, and would be the perfect next step up the chain of progress after Obama.
So, I’m in. She’s terrific.
Marta Evry
Mistermix,
Midway through Darcy’s speech – in talking about the war on women – she noted how 1 of 3 women in America was likely to have had an abortion in their lifetime. Then, to illustrate the point, she asked the women in the audience who had had an abortion to please stand up.
I was one of the women who stood. By Darcy’s request, the room was silent. It was the longest 30 seconds of my life.
But then Darcy asked those who supported our right to make that choice to stand in support. Thousands stood. Thousands.
Look, I am neither proud nor ashamed of my choice, but in that moment it was as if someone had lifted a 20-pound weight off my shoulders.
Why? Because I learned I wasn’t alone. And I didn’t have to be.
Darcy made that happen – that’s what leaders do.
Perhaps next time you won’t be so busy trying to think up snark lines to notice.
Carla Axtman
@Marta Evry: YES. THIS.
This is why Darcy should win.
Most of the rest of this thread is unmitigated BS.
When an individual can so clearly see a problem and divine such an obviously workable and effective solution such as Burner has–they should win.
I was in the room having the same experience as Marta, btw. Mine is written here:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2012/06/conservative-blogger-getting-your-shame/
Ronnie P
“should” win doesn’t mean much in American politics.