Thursday Open Thread [2.19.15]

Thursday Open Thread [2.19.15]

Hillary Clinton held a private, one-on-one meeting with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in December at Mrs. Clinton’s Washington home, “a move by the Democrats’ leading contender in 2016 to cultivate the increasingly influential senator and leader of the party’s economic populist movement,” the New York Times reports. “The get-together represented a step toward relationship-building for two women who do not know each other well. And for Mrs. Clinton, it was a signal that she would prefer Ms. Warren’s counsel delivered in person, as a friendly insider, rather than on national television or in opinion articles. And for Ms. Warren, the meeting offered the opportunity to make clear what she believes are the most pressing national issues.” To me, it sounds like that first step in the dance we usually see when a candidate for a party nomination has just more or less locked it up and is exploring an endorsement from the principal rival without demanding an acknowledgment of defeat, not unlike the meeting in a Washington townhouse in 2008 between then Senators Obama and Clinton. But Bloomberg Politics' Emily Greenhouse, thinks it might represent more, not Clinton vanquishing Warren, but the other way around:
Some might have interpreted the report as a sign that Clinton was taking Warren under her wing. But for Warren's most vocal supporters, the self-appointed army raging for economic populism, the tête-à-tête meant just about the opposite. Ilya Sheyman, the executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, which with Democracy for America launched the project Run Warren Run, sounded emboldened. "It's more evidence that Sen. Warren and progressives are driving the conversation within the Democratic Party,” he said, through a spokesman. “That's why we're eager for Elizabeth Warren to run for President, and any candidate would do well to speak to the issues she's led on -- like tackling income inequality, student debt, and taking on the big banks."
I Really Didn’t Want To Write About 50 Shades Of Grey

I Really Didn’t Want To Write About 50 Shades Of Grey

In May of 2012 I wrote a post about 50 Shades of Grey called 50 Shades of Agony. I admit to not finishing the book because, well, I couldn't stand it. It was, without a doubt, the worst thing I've ever read. But I was clear that if the book "worked" for you, then enjoy. That's the thing about fantasies, they're personal and usually private. I haven't seen the movie, but will probably "hate watch" it once it lands on HBO. There's simply too much talk for me not to watch it. My curiosity is probably due to the million or so articles written about movie - and I don't think that number is too far off the mark. So what prompted me to finally write about 50 Shades of Grey? It began with a post over at Delaware Politics (Yes. I know.) by David Anderson titled: 50 Shades A Failure of Modern Feminism.
50 Shades just brought to light what in form or another is normal behavior for millions. What is more interesting to me is that it tears to shreds the emasculation of relationships by modern feminism. 50 Shades is not what I would call the road map to healthy relationships, yet it is popular to near record levels not scene since (ironically) the Passion of the Christ. I found intriguing this article by frequent guest author, Jon Moseley. His premise is that 50 Shades are a perversion of the natural yearning of many women for real men. It speaks to the void in our society created in the last 70 years of the attempt to cleanse society of “a man’s strength and leadership”. He contends that it is a perversion of the healthy original filling the void left by remake of society by the left.
That's quite a leap, and one not based in reality.