Center for American Progress Ideas Conference 9am-4pm **live commentary thread**

[The Other Castro]

Cory Booker is a very passionate speaker, but it can lead to his voice getting fairly higher pitched at times.

[Mr. Morden]

I’m not watching at the moment, but here is journo-Twitter:

https://twitter.com/edatpost/status/864557217223254017

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/864573186540789761

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But also praise for Booker:

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/864578614225981444

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/edatpost/status/864576594802814980

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, looks like this thing is over.

[SATW]

FTR - I agree with what ParrotGuy said. Warren is very Pro-Israel, much more than Cory Booker. (Also, Klobuchar is also relatively Pro-Israel, didn't see her name earlier, my b.)

[Mr. Morden]

Warren is very Pro-Israel, much more than Cory Booker.

What in the world makes you think that?  (That is, assuming that by "Pro-Israel" you're talking about siding more with Israel over the Palestinians.)  Like I said upthread, Warren's past comments on Israel, before she started to drift in a more dovish direction, were just the same sort of boilerplate comments that ~95% of US Senators would make whenever asked about the issue.

I went point by point in my earlier post on examples where Booker has been more hawkish than Warren on Israel, and what is the response to that?  "Warren is secretly even more hawkish on the issue than Booker is, trust me?" 

[publicunofficial]

Depressing that the American Progress Ideas Conference has maybe one a half people I would call "progressive".

[McGovernForPrez]

Depressing that the American Progress Ideas Conference has maybe one a half people I would call "progressive".

Who might those be in your opinion? I'd say there are at least three people who I found to be particularly "progressive", although I may be forgetting people as well.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Steve Bullock is super impressive.

He'd quite honestly be a great candidate should he choose to run. That speech was really really good. Hope he continues to raise his national profile.

It was a little low-energy for me, but the substance was quite good. He should keep practicing.

[publicunofficial]

Depressing that the American Progress Ideas Conference has maybe one a half people I would call "progressive".

Who might those be in your opinion? I'd say there are at least three people who I found to be particularly "progressive", although I may be forgetting people as well.

Warren (Though she's a bit too hawkish for my tastes)
Bullock (Obviously has some conservative positions)

The rest I would call center-left.

[SATW]

Warren is very Pro-Israel, much more than Cory Booker.

What in the world makes you think that?  (That is, assuming that by "Pro-Israel" you're talking about siding more with Israel over the Palestinians.)  Like I said upthread, Warren's past comments on Israel, before she started to drift in a more dovish direction, were just the same sort of boilerplate comments that ~95% of US Senators would make whenever asked about the issue.

I went point by point in my earlier post on examples where Booker has been more hawkish than Warren on Israel, and what is the response to that?  "Warren is secretly even more hawkish on the issue than Booker is, trust me?"  

Warren's vote for the Iran Deal was expected.
Booker's vote for the Iran Deal was a massive betrayal to Pro-Israel voters and Pro-Israel Jews.

Many of us in the Pro-Israel community, GOP and Dem, supported him his entire political career and he wouldn't even give his constituents a real chance to talk to him about the negative effects of the Deal after he supported it.

He had deep personal and emotional ties to Jewish communities. He was the President of a Jewish organization in college and had cultivated those relationships for many years.

Warren met with her constituents, before and after supporting the deal, and cares about what they think, even if she voted against how they wanted her too. It's easier to respect someone if they do something out of principle than if they did it out of political opportunism.

Also, I have friends who know Warren personally and they believe she's one of the biggest supporters of Israel on the left. These people have been very involved in the Jewish community and I have no reason to doubt them.

Maybe I, and many other Pro-Israel activists, are being irrational but it's harder to forgive a longtime ally for a massive ideological betrayal than someone who is relatively new to the scene.

That being said, I wouldn't support either over a republican.

[SATW]

http://forward.com/news/343539/elizabeth-warren-is-the-surprising-israel-hawk-on-hillary-clintons-vice-pre/

Elizabeth Warren is very much a hawk on Israel.

[McGovernForPrez]

Depressing that the American Progress Ideas Conference has maybe one a half people I would call "progressive".

Who might those be in your opinion? I'd say there are at least three people who I found to be particularly "progressive", although I may be forgetting people as well.

Warren (Though she's a bit too hawkish for my tastes)
Bullock (Obviously has some conservative positions)

The rest I would call center-left.

Interesting call. I think Kamala Harris has some progressive tendencies, and although Gillibrand is really an opportunist she has been acting very progressive as of late. Other than that I'd agree. I also don't think hawkishness is a precursor to progressiveness. The founder of the U.S. Progressive Party was a notorious hawk.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

FTR - I agree with what ParrotGuy said. Warren is very Pro-Israel, much more than Cory Booker. (Also, Klobuchar is also relatively Pro-Israel, didn't see her name earlier, my b.)

Warren is way more pro Israel than I'd like, but compared to Gillibrand, Booker, Klobochar, or Harris? Get real.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie wasn't even invited. Such a petty conference.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/16/bernie-sanders-democrats-2020-238425

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Bernie wasn't even invited. Such a petty conference.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/16/bernie-sanders-democrats-2020-238425

Did you really expect a Neera Tanden run policy shop to give Sanders a platform?

[Beet]

Bernie wasn't even invited. Such a petty conference.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/16/bernie-sanders-democrats-2020-238425

Did you really expect a Neera Tanden run policy shop to give Sanders a platform?

He wasn't invited because he ran for president before. Hillary Clinton wasn't invited either.

[GoldenMainer]

Depressing that the American Progress Ideas Conference has maybe one a half people I would call "progressive".

To be fair, I wouldn't call the Center for American Progress "progressive". Also, Neera Tanden is a joke.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Warren is very Pro-Israel, much more than Cory Booker.

I went point by point in my earlier post on examples where Booker has been more hawkish than Warren on Israel, and what is the response to that?  "Warren is secretly even more hawkish on the issue than Booker is, trust me?" 

For the record, I was convinced by your point
I still think that Warren is probably much less dovish than Sanders and co.

[Mr. Morden]

http://forward.com/news/343539/elizabeth-warren-is-the-surprising-israel-hawk-on-hillary-clintons-vice-pre/

Elizabeth Warren is very much a hawk on Israel.

I just don’t see any of that as qualifying as being any more hawkish on Israel than the median Democratic Senator.  Look, here is something that Sanders said recently, opposing BDS, but also complaining about American military aid to Israel:

http://forward.com/fast-forward/370906/bernie-sanders-says-bds-wont-solve-mideast-impasse/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are plenty of Democratic activists who would agree with that, but virtually no one else in Congress talks like that except some backbenchers in the House.  Sanders is basically alone in the Senate in complaining about “endless amounts of money, of military support to Israel.”

The most likely explanation, based on everything I’ve observed, is that Warren doesn’t care about foreign policy, and so just regurgitates whatever familiar lines that her colleagues are mouthing, and that (as I said) she’s shifted to a somewhat more dovish set of boilerplate lines in recent years, as she realizes that most of her allies on domestic policy are more to the left on Israel.

I’d also note that there’s nothing in the rest of Warren’s record to suggest that she’s a particularly strong hawk in general, if you look beyond Israel.  She mostly just agreed with whatever foreign policies Obama advocated, but the few areas of disagreement they had mostly had her to his left.  E.g., she voted for a bill that would block a major arms sale to Saudi Arabia, and she voted against Obama’s plan to “arm and train moderate Syrian rebels”.

On your point in your other post about the contrast with Booker, maybe I’m just more cynical than you are.    My default assumption is that none of these politicians have deep-seated beliefs on almost anything.  Rather, they stake out positions for political advantage, but some of them are better than others at appearing to have “convictions”.  So maybe Booker botched his Iran vote in a way that Warren didn’t, but I don’t read that as him having any more or less conviction on it than Warren does.

[publicunofficial]

I would also like to use this thread to showcase that Markos Moulitsas is an ass:

[Webnicz]

Bullock was definitely the biggest winner here INMO, great speech, I'm sure he turned at least a couple of heads.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I would also like to use this thread to showcase that Markos Moulitsas is an ass:

He's such a fraud. He claimed to not be in the 1%, but was a cofounder of a company worth over a billion dollars (Vox media). Obviously he likes polishing the gates to keep out people like Bernie who might raise his taxes.

[Shadows]

If Neera Tanden wasn't managing this, this would be not a big flop. Atleast they should have carried it through 2-3 days, get some Labour, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights, & a range of other liberal group representatives, more Congressmen & Governors, even small Mayor or State Legislators who have doing a great job etc & even the odd Hollywood celebrity. Stretch it out for 2-3 days, make it genuinely about Democratic values & ideas.

This is more about Potential 2020 candidates pitching in which is totally a crap idea 4 years before & does nothing to CAP as a diverse ideological think-tank !

Very poorly done & I don't this surviving ! But what can you expect from the political hacks running Hillary's campaign !