By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions

It’s going to be a long campaign

From today’s Boston Globe: “Harvard link could aid, hinder Warren.” Hmmm … does that mean we can rule out the possibility that being a Harvard professor will neither aid nor hinder Elizabeth Warren? Wouldn’t want to go out on a limb.

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.


Elbowing my way back to health


How’s that trade working out? (XVIII)


  1. Stephen Stein

    Yes, that possibility can absolutely be ruled out. The story line is that Elizabeth Warren is FROM HARVARD (University, not the town, which would be OK and a bit of a yawn).

    So it’s going to be about Harvard either way. The smart money is on “both” not “neither”.

  2. Was this a tongue-in-cheek post, Dan?

    Because, if not, I don’t see your gripe.

    This is a very balanced article presenting both sides to an obvious question about Elizabeth Warren. The truth is her Harvard connection could help AND hurt her candidacy.

    Did you expect this article to take a position or make the case for one side or another? If so, it probably doesn’t belong on the Metro page.

    I think this is good journalism.

  3. L.K. Collins

    1.) Warren’s Harvard connection may have more to do with how she plays the issue than how her opponents play the issue.

    2) Warren may have more of a hassle from within the Democratic Party than from how the Republicans play it.

    It is a Democratic field filled with Democrats who have paid their dues. They will not necessarily go quietly, especially if the view of Obama governance continues to be unfavorable.

    The Republicans pretty much have their core issues already.

  4. LK, I disagree.

    Being a “pointy headed Harvard elitist” is a net plus in a Dem primary. Anyone trying to go negative among Dem. primary voters on that will just lower their own popularity. It’s among the GOP that “Ignorance is Virtue” these days.

    And as for those Democrats having paid their dues, well, dues don’t win elections, votes do. With the new poll today showing Warren ahead of Sen. Barncoat, the dues of those perennial candidates may seem like a quaint footnote next year.

    • Dan Kennedy

      @John: Who among the Democratic candidates has paid his dues to a greater extent than Elizabeth Warren? I’ll give Setti Warren props for his military service, but other than that, they all seem like interesting, accomplished people who’ve decided to start their political careers at the top — including Setti Warren, whose several months’ service as mayor of Newton hardly counts. Certainly E. Warren has more relevant governmental experience than S. Warren.

  5. Mike Rice

    It’s going to be a very long campaign and as this country is so hopelessly indebted and bitterly divided someone tell me what’s going to change after the elections of 2012.

    My condolences to future generations – they’re screwed.

  6. Paul Bass

    Echoes of A.J. Liebling’s great essay on Stalin, “Death On The One Hand…”

  7. tobe berkovitz

    Next Globe headline: “Warren might, or might not, be the next senator from Massachusetts.”

  8. Mike Rice

    If only this country’s gargantuan debt along with its other fiscal problems were about to be put to rest, if only. But unfortunately these problems will continue to plague future generations and as others have stated with respect to passing on this debt – “That’s immoral.”

    • Dan Kennedy

      @Mike Rice: You comment frequently about the debt, and it’s clear that you believe it is one of the big issues facing us. I think your worries are misplaced. If the debt were really an issue, interest rates would be rising, not falling. There can be no progress in paying down the debt until people return to work. Otherwise, you end up in a vicious cycle where you cut spending to reduce the debt, which in turn hurts the economy, leading to more unemployment, lower tax collections and a higher debt. The other thing to keep in mind is that eliminating all the Bush tax cuts (not just the ones for the rich) and simply returning to the tax brackets that we had in the 1990s would eliminate 40 percent of the long-term debt. Which is exactly what we should do once the economy has recovered.

  9. Mike Rice

    @Dan: Considering the current condition of the economy and the lack of a concerted effort being put forth by our “leaders” in Washington to address it, if this is as good as it’s going to get – then what? That’s what worries me.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén